Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are indeed working with the Security Council to ensure that the matter is urgently addressed. A UN resolution on this issue is currently being discussed, and we very much hope that it might be agreed by Friday. We are also working with EU partners, and our ambassador has carried out a démarche in Eritrea on behalf of the EU presidency, to urge the Eritreans to lift the restriction and stress to both parties the need for restraint.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, is it not important for the Security Council, at this difficult stage of a peacekeeping operation which has already gone on far too long, to make it clear to both parties in the dispute that failure to co-operate fully with the UN force, or to implement the arbitration, will not be tolerated. Has the time not come for a mandatory resolution of the Security Council, warning that any departure from these criteria by either party could lead to the taking of measures by the council?

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I live in Northern Ireland and do business there. Does the Minister agree that it is a disincentive to UK trade for our exporters to be potentially out of communication with customers in mainland Europe for two, and possibly four, hours in the business day? We have to commence and finish business one hour before our European competitors.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill to the House this afternoon. I remind noble Lords of my family's farming interests, and also of my association with several rural organisations and charities.
	We are very much looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who is with us today. I understand that he was formerly Bishop of Birkenhead and had a great input with the farming community there. We look forward to his contribution, which is coming shortly. We welcome him to the House.
	This Bill comes to us, as the Minister has said, after a searching passage through another place and amendment by the Government as a result. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill—the Natural England part of which will be headed up by Sir Martin Doughty—follows four years of pressure on Defra and its associated bodies. On the surface, this is the outcome of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. We add our thanks to him for that. We should remember, however, that his work was occasioned by poor performance levels at that time on the part of Defra. There was the sluggish response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; the lack of control over subsequent events, and I believe there are still some outstanding bills to be paid; the problems that followed the amalgamation of the cattle tracing service and the Rural Payments Agency; the appalling number of errors consequent on the introduction of satellite mapping on farms; the constant evidence of the decline in British Agriculture; the closure of rural services, to which the Minister has referred; and the growth of rural poverty and deprivation is still with us. The noble Lord's report was much needed.
	This Bill is to,
	"make provision about bodies concerned with the natural environment".
	Why was it, then, that the Environment Agency was not included? As I recall, it was especially excluded from the remit. Why was this? Why was the Rural Payments Agency left out when, as I have said, its performance—or lack of it—is so crucial to the cash flow in farming communities, as well as to other small and medium-sized rural businesses?
	The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, had just four terms of reference, which I abbreviate: to simplify or rationalise existing delivery mechanisms; to achieve efficiency savings and maximise value for money; to provide better and more streamlined services; and to identify arrangements that can help to deliver Defra's rural priorities and public service agreement targets cost-effectively. We would all support that.
	The main thrust of the Bill is the establishment of Natural England, which occupies six pages and a four-page schedule. It encompasses the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency and the transfer of the duties of the Rural Development Service. Apparently, however, like a phoenix from the ashes, the Countryside Agency will be resurrected within both Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. Why did the Government decide not to take on the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that the Countryside Agency should simply cease to exist?
	The Commission for Rural Communities is to be established with the general purpose of promoting both awareness of rural needs and methods of meeting them that contribute to sustainable development. I am grateful to the Minister for enlarging upon that. He referred to rural proofing, as we all call it.
	The impact assessment seems to suggest that the set-up costs will be in the range of £5 million to £9 million and that the savings will come from the closure of the Countryside Agency. However, in another place, my honourable friend Oliver Letwin, quoting from the regulatory impact assessment, said that the on-off costs of this simplification measure in establishing English Nature would be between £32 million and £47 million between 2005 and 2009. Will the Minister comment on this?
	We have steadily questioned the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities; not that we do not believe or know that there is a need for a rural advocate, because indeed there is, but because to us this is yet another high-level body responsible for talking.
	True, it is supposed to talk with good effect to government departments, local authorities, local planning authorities and statutory undertakers and persuade them to consider their effects on rural communities. But we have reservations about it. We shall look closely at the reformed Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is moving into a United Kingdom committee. Although we support that we shall look at it in greater detail in Committee.
	In general we welcome the wildlife clauses, particularly those that deal with invasive non-native species. We recognise with gratitude the benefits that our intrepid explorers of earlier generations brought back to the United Kingdom, but it is now obvious that we have to be selective if our existing flora and fauna are to survive and contribute to our own unique habitat.
	Strengthening the rules on SSSIs is unfortunately necessary. The idea that any Section 28G authority can carry out operations that result in damage to SSSIs is unacceptable. They may well excuse themselves on the grounds of the mass of new legislation, direction and guidance with which all manner of authorities are constantly bombarded. However, these clauses, with their considerable financial penalties, will have the effect of making them more careful in how they treat SSSIs. Amendments to the rules of the national parks and Broads Authority are mainly sensible. But we note with slight amusement that, rather than attempt to define "significant expenditure", the Government propose merely to remove the need to have regard to it at all. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that too.
	Parts 6, 7 and 8 are welcome in principle. I know that many people will be pleased at the new controls to be operated in regard to mechanically propelled vehicles, an issue to which the Minister referred in detail. I also know, however, that there are many who wish to use such vehicles on the rights of way. They feel aggrieved because they feel that they have a lack of suitable facilities. Consequently, in Committee we shall look very closely at the contents of these clauses and the timing of their introduction. We await eagerly the promise made by the Minister in another place on 11 October—at col. 228 of the Official Report—to deal with the flood of applications to register byways on definitive maps. Can the Minister tell us how many there are and how long it will take to process them? In Hampshire, for example—and these are Defra's own figures from May 2005—BOAT applications currently stand at 25, compared with six in 2004. GLEAM, which I know has written to so many of us, has supplied figures showing that in 2005 there were 147 applications, of which 73 are post 11 October 2005. There is a real problem as regards applications that have already been lodged and the pressure put on local authorities by organisations to get the new ones registered. Clarity on that point would be very helpful.
	The Minister referred to the dissolution of existing levy bodies as part of the Bill and referred to Rosemary Ratcliffe's report. The note I have asks when the report will be available but the Minister has already said that it will be Friday. The Minister has spoken of consultation, but how long will that take? How long will it be before individual Peers can get a copy of the report and how quickly will the Government respond after the consultation? Will it be before or after the Bill's passage through Parliament?
	The issue of levy bodies brings me to that of finance. Clause 6 allows Natural England to give financial assistance. Clauses 14 and 24 allow the Secretary of State to make such grants as she sees fit to Natural England and the commission. The latter receives wide financial powers under Clause 23, as do the conservation bodies under Clause 35.
	I have already mentioned the removal of financial restrictions on national parks.
	Clause 87 allows the appropriate national authority to make grants to the new agricultural boards; in England that will be the Secretary of State. Clause 91 gives the Secretary of State wide powers to grant, loan or guarantee moneys in respect of expenditure relating to any matter connected to a "Defra function", and her word that any function is a Defra function is to be conclusive evidence of that fact. I hope that the relevant committees in both Houses will be aware of these various powers and will monitor their use carefully.
	The main part of the Bill occupies 43 pages of print. The schedules take up 58. Of those, repeals and revocations extend for four-and-a-half pages while Schedule 11, entitled Minor and consequential amendments, uses up twenty-six-and-a-half pages. In other words, one-third of the Bill is devoted to changes to existing legislation. We should examine this very carefully in Committee to make sure that when we pass this Bill we will be confident that it does not carry the risk of any unintended consequences.
	In the minutes that remain to me I should like to turn to aspects about which we are particularly cautious. First, why, for instance, is the Forestry Commission to be, in the words of the policy statement, a major partner of Natural England rather than an integral part of it, especially when there is so strong an emphasis on the need for it to "work closely" and have a "strong and transparent partnership" with Natural England.
	Secondly, how will the Government ensure the preservation of the independence of English Nature? I have not always agreed with its pronouncements but I have always acknowledged that its voice remains free from government influence. By joining it in a body that is to be subject to direction, guidance and control, are the Government hopeful of eliminating one source of criticism; that is, how can this be a fully independent advice giving body?
	It is notable that none of the major players in this new organisational structure is elected. Moreover, there is no direct reference to RDAs, even in Schedule 7, entititled Designated Bodies—I understand that is the way the Government wish to push their policy through—although the policy statement refers to those designated bodies having the power to delegate to local authorities and regional bodies. There must, in practice, surely be strong links between the RDAs and both Natural England and the commission, and it is our contention that the Bill as it stands will remove even more accountability from local, elected representatives. Many colleagues are very unhappy about that.
	Finally, we are seriously concerned about the dangers of overlap and disagreement. There is no merit in streamlining an organisation if, in the process, we build in conflict points. The time that used to be taken in consultation and discussion will merely be dedicated to argument and dissension.
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee reported on the draft Bill and recommended the use of the Sandford Principle,
	"to apply in those exceptional circumstances where there is an irreconcilable conflict, to make clear that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment takes precedence over other purposes".
	I noted that, but as the Minister himself said, that will be a very difficult balance to achieve when it is crucial that economic and social circumstances are taken into consideration for long-term sustainability.
	From my contribution noble Lords will appreciate that it is our intention to examine the Bill very closely in Committee.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches also thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. We warmly welcome a Bill whose aim is to improve the natural environment and rural communities in England and Wales. I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I live in Bideford, and every time I go to Exeter I appreciate the extent of his diocese and the difficulty of getting round all of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has already told us that the right reverend Prelate will be well qualified to speak on these issues. The speakers' list reads like a Who's Who of expertise in rural issues, and I am looking forward to hearing all the speeches.
	Most of this Bill can be seen as another step on the Government's path to improve the way that we look after the natural heritage of England and Wales and the landscape and biodiversity. I congratulate the Government on continuing on that path. The CRoW Act gave both rights and responsibilities for the landscape and biodiversity of this country. It enabled people to access and enjoy vast tracts of land that they had not been able to access before, and at the same time it gave new powers for instance to AONBs and new responsibilities to people to learn the countryside code and to learn more about what is going on around them.
	The CRoW Act was something that we could build on. It gave government departments responsibility for biodiversity, after a bit of persuasion from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and me. I am glad that they took up our suggestion that they include that in the Bill and that they build on it today by extending that responsibility to local authorities. There is a great need for that, because SSSIs are still being damaged and are still in an unfavourable condition. Many species of all sorts of creatures are still in decline, from birds and butterflies to frogs and plants. With the added issue of climate change creating more extreme conditions, species will come under increasing pressure, so preserving their habitats and ensuring that they can become resilient to that pressure is even more important if we are to preserve biodiversity.
	It is also a time of change and opportunity, with the CAP reform that is going through. The reform means that as we move from production subsidies to the single farm payment and a proper emphasis on agri-environment schemes, there will be the opportunity that an agency such as Natural England can grasp. I was extremely pleased to hear the formal announcement this afternoon that Sir Martin Doughty will chair Natural England. On his past record he will make a wise and able chair, and I look forward to Natural England being given a strong start under his chairmanship.
	Having welcomed so warmly the way that the Government are dealing with the natural environment, I am afraid that I cannot say the same for the way in which they are addressing the outstanding social and economic concerns of rural areas. We have to look back and learn lessons from the past before we can look to the future. The Government were given a head start in that regard by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on bringing delivery closer to the customer. He made many good recommendations, only one of which I shall refer to this afternoon. The Government have not taken sufficiently to heart the lessons of that report and the things that were self-evident to everyone in rural communities that we all told them about for me to resist the temptation to try to amend the Bill fairly substantially in one or two areas. In particular—and this has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—is the issue of rural development agencies. The fact that they are not even referred to in the Bill, let alone made more accountable for service delivery in rural areas, leaves a huge gap to be filled.
	Then we must look at the role of Defra. In June 2001 the demise of MAFF and the birth of Defra were announced. Because we use the acronym all the time, we have forgotten that the last two letters of the acronym stand for "rural affairs". So it is the department for rural affairs, and I am sure it has the professional capacity to deliver on a wide range of rural affairs and advise other government departments. The department was troubled by its MAFF past and it found it easier to pass the responsibility to the Countryside Agency for vast tracts of that work. I believe that it still intends to slope its shoulders instead of taking back the responsibility for rural policy, by passing it on to the CRC—yet another quango, and yet another acronym.
	During the time in which the department sloped its shoulders, the problems in rural communities have got worse. We could all name those that have got considerably worse. Lack of affordable housing in rural areas is top of the list. The Countryside Agency brought the matter to the Government's attention time and again. They have finally responded by creating a commission under Elinor Goodman to review the issue. In doing so, however, they have shown the way forward for themselves. They have created a commission to advise them about what to do on rural housing, and can create ad hoc commissions full of experts to advise. They do not need a full-time, stand-alone quango to fulfil that role.
	In Committee, we shall explore exactly why the Government thought another quango necessary. Before the Minister tells me the line about gathering the expertise together, I should repeat the wise advise of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, whose report in October 2003 was the starting point of the Bill, as the Minister reminded us. I am talking about local knowledge and local delivery. I shall quote recommendation 14 by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in full because it is so important. He says:
	"Local authorities and local partnerships should assume the main responsibility for delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. They should be fully consulted by Defra and the Regional Development Agencies about any changes to policy and delivery arrangements and should be given the necessary flexibility to address local needs. The potential of Rural Community Councils as partners in community-based delivery is underestimated and should be enhanced".
	I could not agree more with that statement. If the Government build on what is already there, in local democratic terms they will go a long way down the road of improvement.
	Is the Government's position that they think that local government is still not capable of delivery? Since the Government took that view last time, vast amounts of energy and effort have been spent by the Improvement and Development Agency and the Audit Commission to strengthen the capacity and ability of local government. Either that energy, effort and money has been wasted, or local government is even more capable than it was in the first place. If the rural communities are truly to benefit, and if local democracy is to be renewed in the way in which the Government have said time and again that they are interested in doing, rural delivery must start with local councils. Changes of direction in rural policy that the Government are considering must be fed up from local councils through other bodies, including Natural England and regional development agencies, until we come out with a rural policy that goes up from the grass roots and can really work.
	The Government use all those words from time to time, but when it comes to it we do not see the action. The Bill should really define how rural communities work through their local authorities for social delivery, and how local authorities and regional development agencies interact to deliver the socio-economic side of the package. Why is that especially important now as we go through Second Reading? It goes back partly to CAP reform. When the funding packages come through and the money moves from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2—the rural development pillar—all the funds go through the regional development agencies. Unless we get the equation right of how they sit in the picture and of what role local government will play in fulfilling the aspirations and expectations of rural communities and is able to draw down the funding in a coherent way, there will be no real rural development. It will be a hollow aspiration. I hope that we can amend the Bill so that it will strengthen rural areas in the way that I imagine the Government envisaged that it would when they started to draft it.
	I welcome the provisions in Part 3 on wildlife, and the chance to examine them. Many are needed and worth while. On these Benches, we will look at extending the non-native species provision to birds. Before everybody thinks that that is simply a reaction to avian flu—although that is of course an important consideration—I would say that, as we look to protecting our own birds and realise that it is a criminal offence to catch a bird in this country, we should be affording that same protection to birds of other countries which are less able to spend money on protecting them.
	My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will talk about rights of way. Indeed, he is something of an expert on the thorny issues in this Bill. I am particularly looking forward to working again with my noble friend Lord Greaves, as he and I worked together so much on CRoW. I will value his suggestions as to the way forward.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear from the outset that the Armed Forces operate to the very highest standards. All personnel are aware of the necessity to operate within the law. It remains MoD policy to initiate a service police investigation into every instance where the action of British service personnel may have led directly to the death or injury of Iraqi civilians. The Government back our troops fully. I, along with the Chiefs of Staff, am very proud of the role the British Armed Forces play in the world. They do an exceptional job in very difficult circumstances and operate to the very highest standards.
	"The trial of the seven members and former members of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment concluded on 3 November in Colchester, after the judge advocate directed the board to find all seven defendants not guilty. The trial related to an incident in Iraq which occurred at the roadside in Maysan province in southern Iraq on 11 May 2003, following which Mr Nadhem Abdullah, an Iraqi citizen, died. The seven individuals were jointly charged with murder and violent disorder.
	"I am limited as to what I can say about the judge advocate's decision, as this is a matter for my noble and learned friend, the Attorney-General. However, it may be helpful if I place this trial in its operational context.
	"The end of the trial has raised the question of why these soldiers faced these serious charges. Soldiers understand that they are required to operate within the law and their rules of engagement and can be held to account for their actions. All soldiers in Iraq receive a briefing on this. They also receive training in the law of armed conflict as part of their annual training. Soldiers are not above the law.
	"Whenever an incident occurs or an allegation is made, a Royal Military Police investigation is launched by the commanding officer. The conduct and scope of such investigations is determined independently of the chain of command.
	"The RMP Special Investigation Branch is a fully professional investigative agency, which conforms to UK Home Office standards where appropriate and follows civilian police investigative procedures. Investigations are carried out thoroughly and professionally and in accordance with the rules of evidence, UK best practice and application of the standards of the Association of Chief Police Officers, but operational circumstances or cultural differences may limit the forensic and investigative opportunities.
	"In this case, the RMP was operating in a hostile and volatile environment, which clearly impacted on some aspects of its investigation in terms of both its scope and its timing. The decision to prosecute was taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority based upon the evidence gathered by the Royal Military Police. The Army Prosecuting Authority acts as prosecutor in all courts martial and has a similar role to that of the Crown Prosecution Service in civilian courts. The APA is statutorily independent of the Army chain of command, which has no influence over its case management or decision-making process. The decision to prosecute is based on its assessment of the evidence and of the realistic prospects of a conviction, as stated on Thursday by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
	"Everyone is presumed innocent, unless and until they are found guilty. The four servicemen and three ex-servicemen were provided with every assistance to enable them to put their case. A unit defending officer was provided for each of them and acted as their link with their defence team. They were each defended by a QC, funded by the Army Criminal Legal Aid Authority, and they were all afforded full welfare provision throughout the period up to and including the trial. This continues.
	"As the Judge Advocate General made clear, he had no criticism of the Army Prosecuting Authority in bringing the case to trial. This court-martial demonstrates the Army's commitment to transparency and accountability. It was held in open court, open to full public scrutiny, and to the same standards of justice and independence that are present in the civilian justice system. All the parties and authorities involved, military and civilian, acted properly and in good faith.
	"The British Army is not complacent. Following all operational commitments, a process of continuous and determined professional review is undertaken. The comments of the judge advocate are being considered and a comprehensive review of the 3 Para trial is under way.
	"In addition, the Army announced a review, following the trial earlier this year of members of 1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The review is being conducted on behalf of the Chief of the General Staff by a senior experienced officer and is looking at issues arising from concluded courts martial relating to deliberate acts of abuse. This review will seek to learn lessons and look at wider issues emerging from trials and other reports in order to safeguard and improve the Army's operational effectiveness. Any findings can be published only after all the courts martial have concluded. This is therefore likely to be some time in the future.
	"This case has shown our determination to ensure that justice is done, irrespective of the difficulties. We are very sensitive to the ordeal that these soldiers have been through. They have acted with dignity throughout and I hope that they will now be given respect and privacy to enable them to continue with their lives.
	"More than 80,000 service men and women have served in Iraq. Only a very small number have been accused of ill treatment of Iraqi civilians, and a number of those have already been cleared of any wrongdoing—as in this case. Our troops in Iraq continue to perform outstandingly but they are not above the law".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, noble Lords made a number of assertions and asked a number of questions which I will collate together to answer. There are some broad themes here that I should address. The Opposition tabled a Question for the Secretary of State for Defence which is why I am repeating the Statement in this House this afternoon.
	We recognise the importance to morale for our Armed Forces to feel that they are getting proper support both on operations and in the way in which trials such as these are conducted. We do everything that we can in the support that we give. For example, each of the accused was provided with a QC at public expense and was supported by his regiment. But, as the noble Lord said, we need to understand why there is a perception that the accused were hung out to dry. That is not how we see it. When I was in Iraq that was not the impression I gained, but there have been statements saying that this is affecting morale. I shall look into the matter and ask questions to get further information. It is not my understanding that it affects matters today, but I will look into it further and report to the House in due course.
	The review by the Ministry of Defence is being undertaken with all speed. I commit to give an update to the House on the outcome of the interim findings of the review within a month. It is very important, for the reasons the noble Lord stated, that we report as soon as we can. It will take considerable time as a number of issues need to be reviewed. But it is important for us to keep the House informed.
	As the noble Lord said, there was no criticism by the Judge Advocate General that the case was brought by the prosecution. His criticisms related to failures—as he saw it—in some aspects of the investigation. We must take into account the fact that these investigations took place shortly after main combat operations ended in March 2003. The alleged offence took place in May 2003. The situation was very difficult at that time. It is important to recognise the very difficult job the Royal Military Police undertake within the Special Investigations Branch. Nine members of the RMP have lost their lives serving their country in Iraq. The job they do is extremely challenging. In this case it was made worse because members of the Parachute Regiment returned to the United Kingdom shortly after the alleged offence took place and therefore the investigation had to take place in both Iraq and the UK.
	Noble Lords have questioned the cost of the trial and the decision to bring the prosecution. The decision to prosecute, as I have said, was made by the Army Prosecuting Authority. The judge made no criticism of it. On the cost of the trial, we do not accept the numbers that have been bandied about in the press. However, it is very important that all efforts are taken for the defendants to be properly supported, which is why it was right for them to have had a QC and for the public purse to support those costs. So we make no apology for the costs of the trial. The effect that these things have on the future morale of the Armed Forces means that they must be done properly.
	Clearly, there are lessons to be learned regarding investigations. The noble Lord questioned why a number of these cases have arisen in this way, compared with other operations, such as the first Gulf War. We need to recognise the circumstances in which Iraq has evolved from major combat operations to our being there in a peace-keeping mode of operation in support of the rebuilding of Iraq over a period of time. The nature of such operations, as they move from combat into support mode, provides a number of challenges for the Armed Forces in terms of the evolution of the rules of engagement. We need to take into account the challenges that presents, both in terms of how investigations are undertaken and the support and clarity that needs to be given to our Armed Forces in the field. We need to learn any lessons that emerge from this; but we recognise that this is an evolving situation where we need to adapt and learn from our experiences.
	However, I say as clearly as I can that there has been no aspect of political correctness or political interference in this case. Ministers are not involved in any of this. The process of prosecution is taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority, which is under the control of the Attorney-General. It is independent of the Armed Forces; and it is very important that it is independent and seen to be so. It is important that we are able to say within the Ministry of Defence that any accusations against any of our people are properly investigated by an independent authority and that there is no question of interference by the military. That is absolutely clear.
	In conclusion, I commit to the House to make sure that we give a report on the lessons that we are learning as we learn them. As I said, I will do that within a month.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I speak with some deference, having had the honour to hold a commission in the Army for 40 years. Having several times been ordered on operations, we always felt that we did so with the country and cross-party support behind us. Of course we realised that we had to act within the law and that breaches were to be swiftly investigated and we hoped that the emphasis would be on the word "swiftly".
	When on operations, there is nothing worse than having such things hanging over you for a long period of time. Very sadly, that swiftness does not seem to have applied totally to Iraq any more than does feeling that you have the country and cross-party support behind you.
	During the revelations of doubts and the reservations about this war registered by those in high places, such as those in the Guardian today by Sir Christopher Meyer—I exclude from that my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce who voiced concerns before the war—I wonder how many times the Government thought deeply about the impact on the members of the Armed Forces of what they were being required to do. I found it immensely distressing that we should have witnessed yet another example of apparent disregard on the morale and well-being of our Armed Forces, of whom so much has been demanded and who have been put under such strained resource pressure by this Government.
	Do the Government not worry about statements made in the recent trial by the member of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment about the effect on his morale and by the Chief of the Defence Staff about the effect on recruitment in the Armed Forces of what has been going on in Iraq? Are the Government happy that members of the Armed Forces, of whom they demand so much and profess to support, should be acquitted after a two-year delay on unsubstantiated charges that were brought as a result of work which I hope every decent person in this country feels thoroughly ashamed; namely, British lawyers touting for anti-Army business in Iraq?
	Do the Government realise that if they continue to commit our Armed Forces to operations where the rules of engagement are so unclear that they result in trials long after the event on ill-conceived or bogus charges against their members which are then thrown out, men and women will no longer be so willing to put their lives on the line in the Armed Forces of the Crown—in which so many of us have felt privileged to serve in the past—if they do not feel that the Government will be thoroughly behind them in all that they are required to do in so many places?

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I would not like the thought to be left hanging that the Armed Forces believe themselves to be above the law. That is absolutely not the case. I would also not like the perception to be left hanging that the law is carried out within the Armed Forces purely for the benefit of satisfying public morals, if you like. It is equally important that those in the Armed Forces see that justice is done. If there are alleged incidents or cases are brought forward, the people serving in the units want to know that those are properly sorted out. So I have no difficulty at all with a prosecution being brought where there is thought to be a case to answer, both for the benefit of those serving in the units as well as those outside the Armed Forces.
	However, what I find intolerable is the length of time that it has taken for this case to be brought to court. It is intolerable because of its effect on the people in the unit. They have had to wait for two years before seeing their comrades-in-arms being properly tried and the case being put to bed or otherwise. Can the Minister say something about what will be done to ensure that that sort of delay does not occur in the future?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for the points he has made because it is essential for us to stress that, from the point of view of the Armed Forces themselves, it is vitally important that justice is seen to be done. He also made an excellent point about the length of time that this case has taken and we must look at that. The investigation took 13 months. I have spoken already about the difficult circumstances under which the investigations were undertaken, by the nature of the operations themselves. My understanding is that the work that had to be done relating to the forensic evidence alone took five months to complete. We need to look at what can be done to shorten this time-scale. The uncertainty under which everyone is put contributes to the concern generally relating to this type of situation. It is something we are looking at as part of the review.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the military justice system does not have jurisdiction over Iraqi citizens so I presume that the witnesses have returned, or will be returning, to Iraq. Further more I cannot comment. As regards the bringing forward of the evidence of those witnesses, the process applied mirrored the principles and procedures used within the civilian courts. My understanding is that that was the guidance and basis upon which the witnesses were brought forward in this case.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, may I apologise for missing the Statement but perhaps I may ask a question based upon what the Judge Advocate General said? I am grateful. Did not the Judge Advocate General say of some witnesses who were some distance away from the scene, as reported by the BBC, that they,
	"could not possibly have seen what they said they saw"?
	Will the inquiry announced by the Minister investigate why that purely objective fact was not ascertained before the prosecution was launched?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I cannot accept that summary of situation. That is not the situation which we face. I have spoken to a number of our troops and, frankly, that is not the impression that I get. The rules of engagement are clear. The issues relating to the effect on morale and the lessons that need to be learnt from this case are being taken on board by the services. I have made a commitment to provide an interim update on the progress of their review to this House. Within a month, I shall do so.
	We really must recognise the challenge that investigations of this nature present for operations. We must recognise the nature of the role that our Armed Forces are undertaking in Iraq and the complexity of the situation that they face. While we need to learn the lessons from this case, the courage and dedication which our Armed Forces have shown in Iraq and the way in which they are helping Iraq move towards a democratic state are admirable, and they should have our full support.

Lord Carter: My Lords, as we have heard, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill implements a key part of the Government's rural strategy. We are all aware of the very serious problems that now face agriculture and many aspects of rural life. Some people might say that the proposed bureaucratic untangling and redesign in this Bill come rather in the category of shifting the deckchairs on the "Titanic". I do not agree with this rather cynical view. The Bill is important and, if we can get it right, the new agency and commission will have a vital role to play in dealing with the environmental, social and economic problems of the countryside.
	The Bill is a little unusual in that Clause 2 is a purpose clause. Purpose clauses used to be quite common, but they rather fell out of favour with parliamentary draughtsmen as it was felt that such clauses might introduce a degree of inflexibility of operation and possibly give rise to a judicial review of later actions by government. As a former business manager, I know that they tend also to produce a Second Reading debate in Committee. This view is illustrated by the briefing that we have all received regarding the wording of Clause 2. Should the purpose of Natural England be to "conserve", to "protect" or to "protect and conserve" the natural environment? I am attracted to "protect and conserve" as a general purpose, but the Government made a fair point in response to the comment in the EFRA Select Committee's report; that is, that "protection" could imply that Natural England could not support necessary and desirable progress in developing landscapes—from recreating heath land to reforming the impact of agriculture. This matter, I am sure, will produce an interesting debate in Committee, as will consideration of the Sandford principle, which states that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment should take precedence over all other purposes. At first sight, that also seems an attractive proposition, but, again, as the Government pointed out in their response to the EFRA Select Committee's report, Natural England will have a remit which will extend far beyond designated sites such as national parks and AONB conservation bodies, where the Sandford principles certainly apply. Its remit will cover the majority of England's landmass. Can it be logically argued that the Sandford principle should apply to everything that Natural England will do in such circumstances?
	Time does not allow a detailed consideration of all aspects of this important Bill, but I shall deal briefly with the proposed Commission for Rural Communities and the rather bizarre name of the new agency, Natural England. The new CRC is intended to retain the existing functions of the Countryside Agency which relate to rural advocacy, expert advice on rural matters and acting as an independent watchdog—the so-called "rural proofing" remit. I understand—and I have heard it said in speeches today—that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have some reservations about, and indeed oppose, this part of the Bill.
	Having read the debates on the Bill in the Commons, I find their arguments rather confusing. They seem to be saying at the same time that there is no need for the CRC, but that, anyway, it can all be done by local authorities. A number of Opposition speakers in the Commons debates called in aid the original proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to abolish the Countryside Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, made that point earlier. At this point, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on her being named Farming Personality of the Year at the Food and Farming Industry Awards last Friday.
	It may be worth quoting what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the concept of the CRC in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at column 51 on 9 November 2004. He said:
	"I was quite happy to see the policy advisory responsibility of the Countryside Agency continue. The argument was whether that was done through a revised Countryside Agency or through the Rural Affairs Forum. On balance, I think the Government was probably right to go for the Countryside Agency because I think it is more structured to give the sort of policy advice that is necessary".
	So the noble Lord supported the concept of the CRC.
	It flies in the face of reality to assume that local authorities would be able to fulfil the proposed functions of the CRC. We would end up with a patchwork quilt of functions across the country. How on earth could local authorities "rural proof" policies? What body would do that? Who would be the rural advocate with direct access to the Prime Minister? I know that Defra has been mentioned as the right body to rural proof policies, but anyone with any experience of government will know the interdepartmental trading that goes on when policy issues are discussed. Would Defra be expected to rural proof its own policies?
	The 2005 report produced by the CRC, State of the Countryside, is 153 pages of enormously valuable material relating to the social and economic problems of the English countryside. There is also the annual rural proofing report. Perhaps when the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, reply, they could tell the House who under opposition proposals would be responsible for producing that vital information, who would do the rural proofing and who would be the rural advocate. They could also tell the House which of the nearly 20 organisations that have briefed us support their views on the CRC.
	The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment at Report in the Commons, supported by the Conservatives, to review the operation of the CRC after five years with a view to deciding whether its responsibilities should be transferred to the appropriate local authorities. It may be that the opposition parties have it in mind to move a similar amendment in this House, but I would ask them to think very carefully before they do so. The principal concern that we have all had since the Haskins report in 2003 has been that the expertise in English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural and Development Service should not be lost. Those three organisations are in the middle of a period of substantial change, with all that that means for finding and keeping competent staff. I cannot imagine anything more disruptive to the best use of skilled resources than to have a five-year axe hanging over the CRC.
	It is of course entirely right that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the CRC. There is a convention in this House that we have a debate each Session on defence. Perhaps there could be a similar convention with an annual debate on CRC reports on the state of the countryside and rural proofing. That would provide an annual opportunity to examine the work of the CRC. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is thinking that former Chief Whips go native very quickly.
	Clause 18 sets out the general purpose of the commission and Clause 18(4) requires particular regard to be given to the needs of people in rural areas who are suffering from social disadvantage and economic underperformance. I cannot really imagine that such a function could be carried out effectively by a multiplicity of local authorities, as many of them would have a strong urban bias.
	On the curious name for the new organisation, Natural England, I wonder if it occurred to those who dreamed it up to look at the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of "natural". The dictionary says:
	"Existing in or derived from nature; not made, caused by, or processed by humankind."
	If anyone thinks that the English countryside, landscape or environment fits that definition, they should remember that the countryside that we enjoy has largely been created by farmers. It is the very reverse of natural, as it was,
	"made, caused by, or processed by humankind".
	The bucolic vision of cows safely grazing means in fact groups of closely bred animals grazing on heavily fertilized leys and giving 5,000 to 6,000 litres of milk per annum or more, which is certainly not natural. The natural yield is probably about 1,000 litres. That lovely field of wheat without a weed to be seen, yielding 8 to 10 tonnes per hectare, is heavily fertilized and treated with pesticide to remove the natural fungi, weeds and insects. The natural yield would probably be less than 4 tonnes per hectare.
	I could multiply the examples many times over.
	Why not just call the new agency the "Commission for the English Rural Environment", to distinguish it from the Commission for Rural Communities? We would then have two agencies with distinct but related titles and functions. Or, perhaps, the "English Rural Environment Commission", which, I admit, has an acronym that sounds rather like "earache". Almost anything would be better than Natural England, which describes the exact opposite of the true function.
	This is an important Bill, and we can look forward to some interesting debates in its latter stages. It deserves the support of the House.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, as a new Member of your Lordships' House, I begin by expressing my appreciation for both the general warmth of welcome and the many specific acts of kindness I have experienced since coming here. I note particularly the unfailing courtesy and assistance I have received from the Officers and attendants of the House.
	It is my privilege to serve the beautiful and largely rural county of Devon, not only as its Bishop, but as the chair of its county strategic partnership. As such, I naturally welcome the intention of this Bill to provide structures that will deliver social justice for all, tackle social exclusion wherever it occurs, and provide fair access to services and opportunities for rural people. However, my experience teaches me that to achieve such laudable aims requires structures that facilitate partnership working not only at the national level, but at a local level too. At present this can be difficult.
	In Hatherleigh, for example—where the cows, whether they look at the clocks or not, produce the best tasting beef in the country—we have recently commenced building the £1.6 million Hatherleigh community and enterprise centre, one of the vanguard projects of the post-foot and mouth recovery plan for that small market town, which was devastated by that crisis. It has taken four years of intensive local community effort, including raising a contribution of £260,000 from the local community itself, to bring it to that point.
	The process has involved successful bids for no fewer than seven separate sources of public funds, all ultimately coming from the ordinary taxpayer: the south-west RDA, European funding through Objective 2, SureStart, Sport England, Devon County Council, West Devon Borough Council and Hatherleigh Town Council. Reconciling the contrasting objectives of these funding bodies within a single coherent project has been an almost full-time occupation for the one community development worker. Moreover, some public bodies have failed to provide funding, and the search is still on for finance to support the renewable energy aspects of this development.
	Will the Bill help to simplify this kind of process? I am concerned that it will reorganise the institutional arrangements at a national and regional level, but perhaps do little to simplify and co-ordinate at the local level. I fully acknowledge that the Government are committed to simplifying rural delivery, but for many in my diocese it is still not clear how this will happen. The workings of the new arrangement will need to be monitored carefully.
	That brings me to the proposed Commission for Rural Communities. The CRC is intended to have an important watchdog and advocacy role. There is a need for a body that can hold the Government to account on the nature of rural policy and the delivery of that policy. Some in my diocese have expressed concerns that this body will lack independence and be largely a creature of Defra and the Government. There is no reason why that should be the case. There are many cases of tough-minded, independent commissions set up by government; the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission are good examples. A robust CRC, with commissioners drawn from the rural communities themselves, as well as from the voluntary sector and from those academic institutions with their fingers on the pulse of rural England, could highlight issues as they emerge in rural areas. But the engagement of those who are actually already deeply involved in rural community development—including, perhaps I may say, the churches—is absolutely vital.
	In the south-west we face a number of key issues relating to the development of rural communities. They are well-known: affordable housing; a low-wage, low-skill economy; poor transport connections; and lack of access to modern information technology. The addressing of these issues requires strong partnership working. In Devon, I constantly hear the demand for mechanisms that will build successful and robust partnership between existing rural agencies, the local authorities, the regional development agency, the government office and similar bodies. There is also a demand for mechanisms that will produce strong advocacy, rapidly grab hold of emerging issues and bring them to the attention of departments and Ministers.
	I am aware that the CRC, as a division of the Countryside Agency, has already highlighted to good effect issues surrounding rural disadvantage and housing. With no responsibility for policy delivery, the CRC could be able to roam across a wide range of rural issues. By conducting or commissioning the necessary research, it should support the evidence-based policy that we very much need. But for that to happen, and if the CRC is to come into being, I hope we would all agree that the commission must have robust independence, truly representative membership and resources adequate for the task, and, most of all, enable effective local delivery—especially in the most remote and sparsely populated rural areas of our land.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, with whose wise words of wisdom of warning I most heartily agree, on an excellent maiden speech.
	I have considered the Bill, and some parts worry me. I declare an interest as I am married to a farmer, and in my spare time I end up getting dragged in to help with the paperwork, so I would welcome anything that smacked of simplifying the current arrangements for telling those who manage the countryside and the land what to do. I am not sure that the Bill has achieved that. We seem to be getting a new body that will have lots of powers—in some cases greater powers than those of the police when it comes to entry and search—and I am not sure that checks and balances are there, so it does not look too good on those bounds.
	I also looked at Clause 2 on "General purpose" and there are lots of things about the Clause 7 "Management agreements" imposing their will on people managing the land. They are binding on the person who has an interest in the land. It does not say that it is binding on the agency as well and they cannot just get out of their agreement on one side. There is another problem with these binding management agreements driven from the centre. What if they get it wrong?
	The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at the start of his speech were particularly important. It made me think of the Communications Act, which may seem completely different, but Ofcom has been successful in many ways. As the Communications Act stated in respect of Ofcom, so might this Bill state in respect of Natural England:
	"It shall be the principal duty . . . in carrying out their functions . . . to further the interests of citizens".
	The second part might be "to further the interests of land managers in ensuring that the natural environment is conserved". At the end of the day, it is not the agency that will be carrying it out; it is the people who manage the land. You need to worry about that. Then there are the general purposes of protecting biodiversity and so on.
	The Communications Act has another provision which this Bill should have—because all agencies should be transparent. Section 3(3) of the Act states:
	"In performing their duties under subsection (1) , OFCOM must have regard, in all cases, to . . . the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed; and . . . any other principles appearing . . . to represent the best regulatory practice".
	Those are good safeguards to have in such a Bill, where we are putting all our eggs in one basket.
	I am also worried about the powers. Clause 8 covers compulsory purchase to carry out experiments. How about returning the land to the people who owned it previously if the experiment has failed or the land is no longer needed afterwards? The Government did that after the Second World War when they had to appropriate land, and it would be fair in this instance to do the same. We have seen compulsory purchases, and we have seen some of the letters that local authorities are sending out already when you have problems with builders trying to repair your houses, which you may have tenanted normally. Local authorities may threaten compulsorily to purchase them—under the Housing Act that was recently passed. They are already sending out rude letters, and you cannot help it if the builders do not perform. We must be careful about powers being misused.
	The Bill is supposed to result in fewer inspections. I am delighted with that idea, but will there be fewer inspections? Will there be fewer inspectors? I doubt it, because Natural England is taking on some of the jobs of the RDS; presumably some of the issues under the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes. But presumably the mapping functions—the RPA and RLR functions—will stay with Defra, which means that all the measuring and that part of the inspection will stay over there. I do not think that the agency will take on all the farming cross-compliance under the single farm payment, probably only the environmental part of it. In that case, Defra will still be doing that work, which means that NVZs and pollution inspections will still be done there. You must watch out for inspectors coming along with other powers.
	I have seen an NVZ inspection take place where a chap took away computer printouts on the amount of nitrogen, which is what he should have been there to worry about. He then went and inspected the farmyards and when he looked at the diesel bunds he did not happen to like the way that they had been built—up to insurance company specifications two years earlier—and he said that he wanted electric motors and all sorts of different things.
	Ten thousand pounds later, someone said, "But if you'd been across the border, next door in Cambridgeshire, they don't insist on that at all. They just point out that it's an insurance risk and that you could get fined and locked up". You will still have those problems. The health and safety inspectors will still come along. If you run a medium-sized arable farm, you will have 150 tonnes of fertiliser, so you will still have the fire brigade and police inspections. If you have animals, you will still have all those inspections as well. I am not sure how the Bill will reduce the number of inspectorates.
	It is the land managers who will have to pay for all this biodiversity and everything like that. What worries me is the cost, because we need to get money out to the sharp end—to the coal face. How many employees will this agency inflate itself to? How many employees are already in Defra and all the other agencies and departments that will be there behind it? Someone has to pay for all this biodiversity. In the CAP funding debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said that nowadays to farm or manage land you must have an outside source of income. That was perfectly true; I heartily agree and have always believed that such income has to be necessary and has been throughout the ages. But people do not realise that, and think there is a bottomless pit of money that they can drain to fund their wildest schemes. We have to be careful of that. I hope that the agency will have a lot of balance and common sense, and will take into account the financial needs and sustainability of its proposals for the rural environment in future.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. Debates such as today's gain immensely from Cross-Bench participation.
	The German scholar Wilamowitz once asked his Oxford contemporary Cyril Bailey what a spoonerismus was. Bailey, replying in Latin, answered with a Horatian echo, "transponendarum litterarum curiosa felicitas"—a curious felicity in transposing letters. One of Warden Spooner's own mangled texts—
	"We are all but as clay in the ponds of the hatter"—
	would serve us admirably today, not least on a Bill that the consenting parties are already describing as a NERC Bill, a transposition of letters that recalls the old acronym for the Natural Environment Research Council.
	I should declare four relatively de minimis interests—first, as a former Minister for the NERC that I have just mentioned; secondly, as a life member of the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust; thirdly, as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Wildlife and Conservation; and, finally, as a vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, an office I hold representing my party in Parliament. The latter is perhaps the most relevant to mention in the context of the Bill, as it underscores the Bill's urban perspective. One of my most satisfactory achievements in the other place was to play a reasonably salient role in securing large-scale charitable funding to computerise the London trust's biodiversity base.
	The Bill and its consenting parties exude harmony—even trust. I cite as an index of the latter an egregious spelling mistake in their joint briefing, which implies that the three merging bodies were content to use one proof-reader rather than two or three. However, what is not clear from either the Bill or the consenting parties' briefing is the nature of the chemistry between them. Too many mergers fail because of transplant rejection; I speak as one who, once upon a time, was the nation's first ever headhunter. Natural selection also applies to mankind.
	I am delighted to learn implicitly from the consenting parties' briefing that the new organisation will be well resourced. That will make it the envy of its conservationist confreres at English Heritage, whose funding slips further and further down the list of DCMS priorities. I am however concerned that, too often, the furtherance of conservation in the Bill is subject to those hoary old words, "have regard to"—that most facile of amulets against judicial review—and that there is insufficient reference to necessary action. Clause 1 tells us that:
	"Except where otherwise expressly provided, Natural England's functions are exercisable in relation to England only".
	I hope that the West Lothian question will not prevent Scottish Peers drawing attention to Section 1(1) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which requires every public body,
	"to further the conservation of biodiversity".
	I also hope that the application of regionality in the Bill will be highlighted in Committee. Much of regional policy in England, especially after the fig-leaf of referendums was ripped aside on 4/11 last year, is conducted through shadowy and insubstantial bodies, among which the environment has difficulty in asserting its importance. It is mildly ominous that one of the Secretary of State's statutory, rather than permissive, roles in Clause 15(1) is that he must give Natural England guidance as to the exercise of any of its functions that relate to or affect regional planning and associated matters.
	The subject of climate change will occupy your Lordships' House on Thursday, when we shall judge the Bill retrospectively on its relevance. Some of us have had our knuckles rapped in the past for going on about housing in the flood plains, but this very weekend has seen insurance companies warning that in future cover may not be sustained in areas vulnerable to flooding.
	On rights of way, I echo my noble friend Lady Byford. A bridle path in the next parish to our own in Wiltshire is under threat. In the short time since I took an interest in the matter, the number of applications to the county council has leapt from 87 to more than 150. Can the Minister tell us whether local authorities are being given any extra resources to cope with this separate version of flooding, or will the council tax payer be expected to meet the bill? In the same spirit, when we come to deal with invasive non-native species, will the Minister be prepared in Committee to tell us what his noble friend Lord Whitty, whom I see in his place and to whom I express no disrespect, declined to do on the Hunting Bill—namely, the Government's intentions towards the control of wild mink, which have practically eliminated the English water vole?
	As to guidance and directions, the latter of which in Clauses 15 and 16 are described by the consenting parties as a "last resort", my mind goes back to a British employee going out to run the Australian operations of a multinational company, whose boss at headquarters told him, "I shall not interfere; I hope I shall not have to intervene". Is the general language of these clauses legislative boiler-plate or does it envisage particular contingencies? The issue is at the very heart of independence.
	In the same vein, I am less sanguine than the consenting parties that there are not contradictions in the general purposes expressed in Clause 2(2). In the Barker report debate last year, I alluded to the six households on our lane in Wiltshire, two miles from the nearest shop. Five of the six are permanently resident. The sixth house was then rented out to a London family, who were occasional visitors. They were understandably absent during the foot and mouth crisis, during which our own two dogs, apart from using our small orchard for exercise, were for three months confined to walks on leads on tarmac. Within an hour of the London family arriving for their first visit since the crisis broke, they went straight into the fields with their dog. On having reality gently pointed out to them, they said that there were no notices and they could not be supposed to know.
	I suspect that the Bill underestimates how far ignorance of town about country will prevent recreation going wholly harmoniously hand in hand with conservation. I remember the Greater London Authority Bill in another place and asking Glenda Jackson, the Minister, what would happen if the multitude of mayoral strategies that the Bill laid down were in conflict with each other. "Oh, but the Bill won't let them be", she said.
	West Wiltshire has lots of footpaths and bridleways. On one such last spring, a Defra notice commended the welfare of ground nesting birds on the set-aside where the bridleway ran. The aim was commendable but, unless you closed the bridleway, frankly it was academic. It is on such points of detail that I hope the Committee stage of the Bill will properly fasten.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I welcome the main thrust of the Bill, particularly the amalgamation of English Nature and the bulk of the Countryside Agency. In so doing I declare an interest as a landowner in the north of England and an ex-member of the English Nature council. I hope that the combined package will provide a more efficient, streamlined and cost-effective body that will command the respect of rural communities and provide a forum by which environmental policies can be delivered in partnership between those with a statutory responsibility for carrying out such duties and those on the ground who must make them work in practice.
	In passing, I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the name Natural England is what I might describe as somewhat naff. Given that the English countryside is one of the finest examples of man's endeavours, notwithstanding the problems and challenges that we all face, there is very little of the natural about it.
	The real theme of my contribution revolves around Clause 2 and the general purposes of Natural England. Although I support the formation of this large new statutory body, with its new size will come additional responsibilities, and with those will come an even greater need for sensitivity and the requirement to carry the respect of those whose hopes and aspirations will be affected by the actions of such a body.
	Clause 2 covers the general purposes of Natural England, which broadly concerns the promotion of nature conservation, access and the enhancement of landscape—all perfectly desirable objectives. However, paragraph 2(e) talks about,
	"contributing in other ways"—
	whatever that means—
	"to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment".
	That appears to demonstrate an inherent assumption that management of the natural environment automatically delivers social and economic benefits, whereas in practice it will depend on how the land is managed and what other factors are taken into consideration. As the Country Land and Business Association, in which I declare an interest as a member, put it,
	"for Natural England to succeed in achieving its environmental objectives—which must be its priority"—
	everybody agrees with that—
	"it is essential that it works in partnership with land managers and with the grain of rural business".
	I entirely subscribe to that view, for there is no point in attempting to drive forward environmental and nature conservation objectives if, in the process, the future of the individual or the enterprise is undermined to the extent that no one can deliver the original objectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, often we are talking about small, vulnerable businesses; we must take that into consideration.
	To that end, therefore, I feel that the Bill and Natural England's position would be enhanced if it had, as part of its remit, an obligation to have regard to the social and economic well being of those who live and work in rural areas. I appreciate the scepticism demonstrated by my noble friend Lord Brooke about the term "have regard to" but I believe that it is appropriate in this case.
	I am fully aware that some conservation bodies argue that there are already sufficient government-funded bodies with an economic brief and that it is vital that we have a strong independent statutory body to champion the environment. I agree with that, but such bodies usually have an environmental duty within their statute, as is the case, for example, with the regional development agencies, which have to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development within the UK. So I see no logical reason why Natural England should not have a similar requirement to take heed of the rural economy when making its deliberations but which would not undermine its principal objectives. It would simply ensure that some form of equilibrium was maintained. Surely that is what joined-up government means.
	Before discussing the Commission for Rural Communities, I should like to say something about Clause 3, which requires Natural England to discharge its functions having regard to the common standards established under Clause 4. The common standards guidance for SSSIs is produced by the JNCC, and it is on the back of that guidance that Natural England will carry out its monitoring of such sites, make its environmental assessments and ultimately produce its management plans. From my experience of actively managing part of a moorland SSSI, I am bound to say that this process is far from satisfactory. I will not go into detail, but there appears to be no opportunity for consultation between the JNCC and practitioners on the ground, or their representative organisations, before the common standard guidance is produced.
	Furthermore, the criteria on which such guidance is produced appear to contain a rather high degree of hypothetical theory. Indeed, I asked one English Nature scientist to give me the basis on which a management plan was based, and he replied, "Ecological instinct". With the best will in the world, that is not good enough.
	While on this theme, we should not lose sight of the fact that the CROW Act demands that a VAM—views about management—is to be produced by English Nature on every SSSI prior to January next year, so once again I find myself wondering with some degree of trepidation on what criteria these will be based. It strikes me as odd that views on management can be produced without consulting the manager.
	I am aware that there is some scepticism about the future role of the Commission for Rural Communities, but I take the view that, provided that the rural advocate is properly focused on assessing, advising and, where necessary, criticising government performance in relation to rural England, it could have a useful role. It is important that it does not end up as a moribund research organisation simply undertaking endless surveys and academic studies that gather dust in some departmental corner. The Government must expect Parliament to be given direct access to the commission, and its reports should be debated in both Houses of Parliament, thus giving it the credit it deserves. Only time will judge its effectiveness, but the ingredients are there if they are used effectively.
	I particularly welcome Clause 58, which removes the expenditure constraints on national park authorities with regard to their duties to foster the economic and social well being of their local communities. This dovetails with my previous comments about economic development being an essential plank for a healthy rural economy from which sound environmental goals can be achieved.
	Finally, a quick word on the additional enforcement powers afforded to wildlife inspectors under Clause 51. These powers will be greatly enhanced, and there is deep concern that they go too far. It is to be regretted that there was no formal consultation on this proposal. I have no difficulty with the principle, providing that such individuals are fully trained in the same way as, for example, trading standards officers or environmental health officers who belong to professional bodies and are subjected to three years' training. I am bound to say that, to date, the record of such individuals is mixed, to say the least, as they sometimes tend to be rather over-enthusiastic in their determination to bring a prosecution. This is an emotive subject, so it is essential that the legislation is properly drafted to ensure that professionalism and fairness prevail.
	This is a large bill, and it is easy to get carried away by any one of its many clauses and schedules. What I hope for is an improved system of environmental and wildlife delivery, based on a healthy respect between the public and private sectors. Both have their part to play, but this system can work effectively only if there is genuine consultation and respect on both sides and a mutual understanding of each other's aims and objectives. There is still much to do in this respect.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his maiden speech. He and I have worked together on regional and rural issues in the south west. I know that he will continue to contribute wisely, as he has done today, to the work of this House.
	First, I declare an interest as a past rural advocate and as an ex-chairman of the Countryside Agency, as well as being a farmer and landowner. Secondly, let me say how much I welcome the Bill. It will, I hope, bring to an end a very long period of uncertainty for all the bodies involved—a period now of some years of what I would call distracting change management, which I believe has taken everyone's mind off the agenda. I hope that we can ensure a speedy resolution of that uncertainty.
	I should like primarily to touch on two areas of controversy which arose during the Bill's passage in the other House. First, there is the statutory purpose of Natural England. This body now has to consider people and communities as well as the environment. Its remit includes access to the countryside, responsibilities for the broad sustainable management of designated areas as well as the ongoing need to understand the practicalities of making a living off the land while at the same time protecting the natural environment. Personally, I think that this broad agenda is a good thing. Nothing to my mind has done more to bring the environment into mainstream thinking than the sustainable development agenda. It is only by making the environment relevant to people's lives, socially and economically, that it gets their backing and their votes.
	Thus I believe that the principles of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—should be spelt out slightly more clearly in Clause 2. However, I can see why the Government do not want to go there and why they have avoided a conflict resolution clause. Our man-made countryside, as others have referred to it, has always been the result of conflict and changing need. I believe that it is right that these conflicts should continue to occur on the Natural England board, without Defra or the Bill setting out how it should respond. Each conflict will have its own solution with decisions quite often being taken on a localised basis.
	The real debate here of course should be about Schedule 1 and the appointments to the Natural England board. This board must not be made up predominantly of environmentalists and scientists. It must include land managers, access representatives, national park or ANOB managers, community leaders and so on. If it is to be a truly effective environmental body it will need to be able to relate to and work in partnership with the groups I have just mentioned, and it is crucial that the board is able to help forge and maintain those partnerships. I hope that the Government can give us some assurances about the make-up of the Natural England board.
	Turning to another issue that arose in the Commons, I would like to underline the crucial importance of the Commission for Rural Communities—the CRC. It is vital that this body exists to carry out research and to speak out strongly—I emphasise the latter part—on behalf of those who live in our countryside, particularly the less well off who might otherwise have no real voice within the system.
	Will rural quality of life be properly catered for by the urban-focused resources of the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and so on? Can we even rely on the largely urban-based staff of Defra? Can we trust the all-too-often urban-centric local authorities and RDAs?
	I heard last week that the new in-phrase is to refer to the "city region", meaning that the best way to deliver the regional agenda is to focus largely on the main city or cities within that region. One can only assume that under this philosophy the rural areas go hang.
	I believe that a nationally based, independent voice for the countryside is now more important than ever. There is a school of thought that this independent voice could be represented by local authorities. Even on a local basis, apart from one or two notable exceptions, I am not certain whether they have a very good record in this field. All too often the majority urban members do not really understand rural problems, do not give them priority and, without really meaning to, tend to hijack the allocation of resources to the urban problems.
	Meanwhile, of course no local authority can possibly act as a nationally based rural watchdog—carrying out national research and providing national proof to government that such an issue is not simply a local problem. When I was a rural advocate the rural commission of the Local Government Association often used to lobby me to make the case for the countryside on issues it felt were important, but where it was constrained by the urban majority of LGA members. It was always grateful that the Countryside Agency was able to take its local issues and put them authoritatively on to the national governmental radar screen. The CRC's role in that respect would, I believe, be enhanced by the fact that it is not a delivery body. It does not any more have to be part of the solution, unlike local authorities.
	The other school of thought is that the work of the CRC should be done by Defra. But how many civil servants would reckon that it was part of their job to stand up and name or shame other departments, or even other Ministers? It just could not be part of their job spec to take a publicly independent line and to speak out and not to take "No" for an answer.
	Funnily enough, there was much discussion in the Commons about the independence of Natural England—as there has been today—but to me it is the independence of the CRC that is really important. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter supported me on that. The CRC has to goad. It has to probe. It has to get under the skin of government at all levels—from central, through regional to local. We need a nationally based body more than ever now to challenge others, or to champion others on rural issues and one that is capable of rural-proofing every aspect of our life.
	The countryside is going through a period of great change. Over 100,000 people move from our towns to the countryside every year. The rural population is growing at three or four times the rate of urban Britain. Farming plays less and less part in the rural economy and rural employment. More and more high-tech businesses are choosing to base themselves in the countryside and the growing and ageing population there depend more and more on efficient service delivery, which, by its very nature, has to be approached differently from delivering to the towns. Meanwhile, under this Government, the main delivery bodies, such as the health service, the education service and its agencies such as Connexions and the Learning and Skills Council, the business links, the police, the job centres and so on, seem to be undergoing permanent restructuring and change. Even the local authorities do not escape. Last year there were local public service agreements and this year there are the local area agreements. There seems to be an obsession with continuous change.
	My point is that amidst the chaos that these changes engender—and in some cases it really is chaos—never has a national rural proofing body and a rural advocate been more needed to ensure that centralists and centrally based planners, with, frankly, no concept of life in the countryside, do not leave the less well off people in rural England as second-class citizens. The CRC will not have an easy task—believe me, I know—but I hope it will have the support of this House.
	Finally, I, among others, look forward to seeing the Government's promised amendments to Part 6 to ensure immediate commencement, without exemptions, of those clauses concerning mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Selborne and others who have said how much they welcome the contribution made in this debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. It was indeed a contribution which came from the heart and an understanding of the problems we face.
	We are very fortunate in your Lordship's House to have such contributions from the bishops. I remember a while ago one bishop, who came from the south west, saying, "Yes, the situation in farming is so desperate at the moment, that they really do need—as they have said so often—a level playing field. At the moment they need a level praying field". That was said, I know, with some feeling.
	I declare my interests as a farmer involved in many rural organisations, and as a past president of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which is equally as beautiful as the south west, now of course the Cotswolds Conservation Board. It has proved itself in its work during the past five years in an area that covers the vast rural area from Bath up to the Warwickshire border. In its reports of restoration work in that area, it has proved the benefit of its effort to restore important grassland sites, in training and restoration of dry stone walling, of landscape character assessments and of farming studies. Above all, it has created a partnership with many organisations and local authorities. It is an example of the dedication of much voluntary work, especially from voluntary wardens, who are themselves country people who understand the importance of land management and wildlife. As my noble friend Lord Selborne said earlier, it is an example of the need for best practice.
	If, therefore, Natural England, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, is a strange name, is to streamline the functions of the present component agencies as set out in Clause 2, is the ultimate intention to try to include all bodies concerned with environmental issues, including the work of local authorities in that area? Will it really lead to a better focused source of land management advice for government and its agencies, as well as its primary customers, operating more efficiently and cutting costs, or will the integrated agency become yet another layer of bureaucracy and expense, which the countryside can ill afford? Already, we have an army of advisers ready to move in to help the farmer or those who are concerned with country affairs.
	Like others, I have many doubts, which will come up in Committee, about many of the provisions in various chapters, including those in Part 3 concerning wildlife and pesticides. In Part 8, I ask what is really meant by "flexible administrative arrangements". That could mean anything to anyone.
	I also hope that in his reply the Minister can reassure your Lordships that all representative interests will be consulted before proposed change orders are made. In his opening statement, the Minister referred to that point and said that it is intended that stakeholders, who have already been consulted as the Bill has been drafted, will be consulted again before the final draft is agreed.
	So, as a countryman, I hope that I may be forgiven for believing that, in the past, too much policy-making by government has been conducted with a strong bias towards urban citizens. We need a Commission for Rural Communities with a strong and independent voice for rural people represented by rural people. The much improved relationship between conservation advisers and land managers depends entirely on close contact. Farmers, for example, need assurances that the advice that they receive on SSSIs and the management of such from English Nature will not be subject to charges in future.
	There is concern that Natural England will not realise its full potential for delivery through its proposed two boards while still focusing on its own internal structure. If the object of the exercise is to follow the proposals for simplification so rightly proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the Bill must make it clear that the agency will be the chief adviser on policy for the natural environment across government activity as a whole and ministers must have due regard to its advice. There is concern about Clause 14, which provides for the Secretary of State to grant aid Natural England, enabling the Secretary of State to influence how it should be spent.
	An example of some of the problems comes from the Cotswolds. Provisions are intended to ensure that the electricity distribution companies are required to have regard to AONB purposes but fail, as the border is crossed, to require the same of British Telecom. In that area, planning authorities required a developer to underground the wirescape but, when it crossed the boundary, BT insisted on wires going overground via poles. That is one of those silly illustrations, an example of the sort of thing that makes nonsense of the work being undertaken at present. I hope that that can be improved. That is a landscape benefit lost.
	Finally, Clause 2 proposes that the agency should have a general purpose of ensuring that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed. The general purpose focuses solely on conservation and is silent on the agency's importance as an adviser. If it is to be a strong and independent voice, surely it should be made much clearer that its responsibility is to advise on policy for the natural environment across all government activities and that Ministers must have due regard to its advice. It must be more, not less, independent. I hope that its main function will make the countryside free from more bureaucracy and red tape.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I speak today as president of a wildlife trust, vice-president of the RSPB and as a former chairman of English Nature. Those of your Lordships who have been around for some time and have long memories—a characteristic of your Lordships' House—will recall that on two previous occasions a similar merger of English Nature and the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Commission has been proposed. On both those occasions, I must confess that I—and several others—fought like tigers to prevent such a merger because we were concerned that the interests of wildlife and conservation would be submerged in a bigger body.
	I am a turncoat and today support the Bill and the creation of Natural England as an organisation whose time has now come. The organisation will have the scale, working shoulder to shoulder with the Environment Agency—I should declare an interest as chief executive of the Environment Agency—to be an effective champion for wildlife and landscape and for their enjoyment as a vital part of the rural economy.
	Although I support the Bill and the creation of Natural England, I am keen to obtain reassurances on two points if I am to support the new body wholeheartedly. I mentioned the argument that this will create a body with sufficient scale to be an effective champion. Natural England will be blessed with considerable spending power in the form of the agri-environment funding and will use that is to achieve benefits for biodiversity, landscape and natural resource protection. I make no bones about the fact that when my noble friend Lord Haskins was writing his report, I expended considerable time and blandishment on him to try to persuade him to give agri-environment funding to the Environment Agency.
	My noble friend Lord Haskins said that he had listened to my arguments and gave me his understanding. But, alas, it was not his understanding that I was looking for, it was his money, and we did not get that.
	It is fundamental for the future that those agri-environment funds, which Natural England will control, need to deliver not only for the objectives of biodiversity, landscape, access and recreation laid out in the Bill, but also for the Environment Agency's objectives of protecting the natural resources of air, land and water. I hope that the Minister can give reassurance that Natural England will be given clear guidance on using the substantial agri-environment funding—currently, in excess of £300 million—to deliver across both its and the Environment Agency's objectives.
	The second area where I seek reassurance has already been raised. I am afraid that I rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but I do on this occasion. Clause 2 lays out clear purposes for Natural England. They are well written, distinctive and complementary to the purposes of the Environment Agency, which was a concern in early drafts of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity which emerged in successive drafts. The Bill gives Natural England a clear primary purpose to conserve, enhance and manage the natural environment and, thereby, contribute to sustainable development. It then elaborates those into five elements, which it is not beyond the bounds of possibility could come into conflict. Although the conflicts between the elements of the Natural England purpose should be rare, I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can have reassurance that in those very few cases where there is a conflict—say, between access duties and the protection of priority species, sites and habitats or important landscapes—the first two elements in the list of five of the Natural England purpose should have precedence; namely, those that cover biodiversity and landscape.
	Why should those two elements have priority? Although people who live in rural communities might not believe it, on looking at the history of the English countryside over the past 200 years, generally, social and economic issues have taken precedence. As a result of built development, changes in agricultural practices, impacts—including pollution from economic activity and the growth of our settlements—and the increase of our road system, wildlife has dramatically reduced in numbers and extent. According to the Government's published figures in the biodiversity action plan and progress reports, quite a number of our most important habitats—salt marshes, reed beds, wet meadows, flower-rich meadows, heathlands and good-quality upland habitat—have been reduced to tiny percentages of their former extent—in some cases to less than 10 per cent—and, in some habitats, to less than 1 per cent of their previous extent. Many of our priority species of birds, plants, fish and mammals are reduced to tiny populations that are often beleaguered in open air zoos that we call nature conservation protected sites, which will be under increasing pressure from development, recreational pressures and, increasingly, climate change.
	I believe that history speaks for itself. Despite the protection given through the national protected site series—the sites of special scientific interest, the special areas of conservation and the special protection areas—and much of the effort put into the biodiversity action plan, we have not seen the restoration of both threatened populations and threatened habitats to anything remotely approaching their former extent. Much of our wildlife is drinking in the Last Chance saloon. Indeed, the extent and quality of landscape outside national parks and AONBs is often similarly threatened. So there is a real, evidence-based case for the priorities of biodiversity and landscape being the principal ones for Natural England.
	I thank the Minister for his commitment today to Natural England being a trenchant champion for the environment. In another place, much stress was placed on the vision and judgment of the chairman and the board of Natural England. I very much welcome the appointment of Sir Martin Doughty as chairman. But chairmen do not last for ever, although I earnestly hope that Sir Martin will, and the board is yet to be appointed. We need firmer assurances from the Minister in the specific area of conflict between the purposes of English Nature, so that when push comes to shove—to use a technical term—important biodiversity and landscape will take priority. I stress the word, "important". I am not talking about every occasion, every sparrow, every view, or every urban green space having to obtain prior consideration, but, in broad terms, the sorts of minimal priorities that were laid out in the biodiversity action plan by the Government.
	I will finish with another issue that, again, has been touched on by many of your Lordships; that is, the impact of some sorts of recreation on biodiversity and landscape and their quiet enjoyment. I welcome the assurances made by the Minister about mechanically propelled vehicles and the Government's commitment to addressing that issue. But biodiversity and landscape, and the quiet enjoyment of the natural environment, can be vulnerable to other forms of open-air recreation. There needs to be clarity from the Government that in such disputes Natural England will take the role of championing the natural environment. There is considerable evidence that in some circumstances access, disturbance and recreation can damage biodiversity and landscape. Again, if push comes to shove, there is always somewhere else to go for recreation. But once biodiversity and landscape has been damaged or gone, most often it cannot be reconstituted.
	I hope that in the years to come we can look back on the provisions of this excellent Bill and the creation of a powerful force in Natural England for the natural environment. I would simply close in pondering on the name of the body that several of your Lordships have undertaken. In the early stages, there was a proposal that we should perhaps call it the "Natural" Environment Agency, which I can assume was only to distinguish it from the concept of the "Unnatural" Environment Agency.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, for my sins I have been the chairman of one non-departmental public body, the deputy-chairman of a second and the chief executive officer of a third. I should like to pursue a point that has been raised by many noble Lords, including, notably, my noble friend Lord Brooke, on independence—in particular, for Natural England with its 2,300 employees. Indeed, we have had another assurance from the Minister that it will be powerful and independent. I would like to look at that proposition from the point of view of the staff. What do they see as they read the Bill?
	The staff will first see that it is a wholly grant-aided body. The Secretary of State can fix the grant as she thinks fit. Of course, the staff will be aware that behind the Secretary of State lies the Treasury. There is an annual round and they will remember that he who pays the piper tends to call the tune. Secondly, they will look at the provisions for the appointment of the board. The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman, may appoint a deputy chairman and will appoint the other six to 13 members of the board. Currently, there is no term of appointment in the Bill and those members may or may not be reappointed. Of course, the Secretary of State is also taking a power to change the number of the members of the board, which could be useful in troublesome times.
	The staff will see that not only the board but also they—the staff—will have their pay—their remuneration—determined by the Secretary of State. It will not be a matter of proposals being put forward, as has often been the case with NDPBs, for approval by the Secretary of State, but straight determination. I am not concerned today to argue that all of those arrangements are bad or, indeed, good, but simply to try to throw light on the proposition that this body is independent and powerful.
	The staff will also see that there are the usual powers for the Secretary of State to make orders by statutory instrument, which are of course subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as well as powers to give approvals and take initiatives. But Clause 15 goes on to state that the Secretary of State has a duty to give Natural England "guidance" on its functions, and that the body must pay attention to such guidance. There is to be consultation, but the staff may ask, "Where is the leverage when the consultation takes place? Are we really independent?". I suppose that independence does have to mean being independent of Defra, otherwise I can attach no meaning to the description.
	Finally, in the following clause, the Secretary of State is to take powers to give "directions", both general and specific. Those are very wide-ranging powers. Perhaps other noble Lords will guide me on this, but from my past experience of a non-departmental public body, I do not know of an instance where the Secretary of State has taken such potentially wide powers. The Government may respond by saying, "Yes, we have the powers because we had to make a lot of decisions. This is a complicated measure and we did not have time to work everything out. We will not use these powers unless we really have to.". That does not offer much comfort because once the powers are in the Act, they will become the law and they can be used.
	Of course it may well be that the Government always intended that this body should not be independent. The staff would be right to conclude that it was a controlled subsidiary of Defra and, under these powers, could be very tightly controlled. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Selborne suggested in his remarks that it might become only a talking shop. Looking at it from the point of view of the staff, it might be a very sensible conclusion for them to reach. They can then think whatever they want to think and they can give advice in whatever way they want to do so, but given these arrangements I think they would be cautious about how far they could go when talking to officials from Defra.
	If, on the other hand, the Government really do intend this body to be independent, the Bill is going to need substantial amendment. At present there seems to be no middle way, unless of course we were to follow the prescription of Humpty Dumpty. Noble Lords will recall that Humpty Dumpty had a conversation with Alice:
	"'I don't know what you mean by "glory"'. Alice said.
	Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously, 'Of course you don't, till I tell you. I meant that there's a nice, knock-down argument for you!'
	'But "glory" doesn't mean a nice, knock-down argument', Alice objected.
	'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less . . . The question is, which is to be the master—that's all'".
	I hope that Her Majesty's Government have more time to read the Oxford English Dictionary and less time to read Lewis Carroll.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to add my congratulations to my friend and colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, on his excellent maiden speech. Between us we have, by my calculation, over 1,000 parishes in our two dioceses. That is a sign of just how many distinct rural communities exist, as well as the still unparalleled scale and reach of the Church of England as a rural organisation. That is the experience we heard reflected in the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate and I am sure that his clarity of mind will be of great benefit to this House.
	I must declare an interest as for almost five years I have been a board member of the Countryside Agency. As the passage of the Bill will result in the abolition of that agency, it is an interest that is in the final stages of terminal care. The agency and its staff have been in the departure lounge of quango life for a long time now, a fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred. I wish to pay tribute to those staff who have continued to do their jobs with remarkable dedication and commitment during a long period of uncertainty. As we shift the pieces of the rural jigsaw around, it is easy to forget that people's lives, families and relationships are being affected. I believe that the staff of the Countryside Agency—and I am sure this is true for the staff of English Nature and the Rural Development Service as well—deserve public gratitude for the way in which they have stuck to their task and prepared for a future in which some of them may not have employment at all.
	That being said, I support the general aims of the Bill. My plea, however, is that once this restructuring is complete, the Government and any successor to them, may leave it in place long enough to do its work. I have previously commented from these Benches on the itch to restructure that has characterised the Government in their rural policy in recent years. What we have before us today is the consequence of the Government's rural strategy, announced in July last year, itself a response to the rural delivery review, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, set up three years ago. By the time Natural England, or whatever it will be called—I suppose it could have been called English Nature, really, but that was probably impolitic—and the Commission for Rural Communities are vested, four years will have passed since the rural delivery review was established. That is precisely how long the Countryside Agency existed before its foundations started to be examined—and it came into being, of course, only as a result of an earlier restructuring whereby the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission were brought together.
	Having planted quite a few trees in recent years, I am advised that it is not always a good policy to dig them up, examine the roots, leave them lying around for a year or two and then replant them again if you want them to grow strong and healthy. The itch to restructure and the longing to legislate seem to be regarded nowadays as marks of reforming, dynamic government. But mature institutions that serve the needs of people rather than desperately seeking to prove their own utility are not produced overnight.
	Rural England needs continuity and stability in rural policy. It needs a policy that brings together social, economic and environmental issues to deliver sustainable development, and the Bill goes a long way, through the creation of Natural England, towards providing an appropriate structure. But I doubt we are ever going to achieve that much-vaunted sustainable development if the bodies charged with delivering such a goal are themselves fragile and short term. I can think of nothing worse than the suggestion in another place that the CRC should have a five-year guillotine hanging over it. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the structures will be left in place for a decent length of time once our work on the Bill is complete.
	In the remainder of the time that I have left, I wish to refer to the Commission for Rural Communities as I find it hard to understand the objections to it. It certainly exists in shadow form already as a division of the Countryside Agency, but that is not because it is some kind of survival of what that agency presently is. It will have less than a tenth, I suspect, of the budget of the Countryside Agency at present, and, of course, the Haskins review suggested that policy and delivery should be separated. Everything that the Countryside Agency does is still reckoned to be necessary. It is simply that the jobs are being parcelled up and delivered elsewhere. But there will be a big hole in the rural strategy without the Commission. It is the Commission that will take forward the work already done in rural proofing, which in fact needs strengthening.
	I hope the Commission will continue to publish the State of the Countryside report. This provides a wealth of information, which sometimes, I suspect, is insufficiently used. I note, for example, in this year's report, that the richest 40 per cent of English households provide 75 per cent of the residents of our villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings. When that is coupled with the disparity in rural areas between local income levels and house prices, it shows how the less well off in rural England are becoming more disadvantaged or forced to move into urban settlements. That raises some very serious questions about the growing spatial separation of the rich and the poor in our society.
	The proposed SIPPs pension arrangements may only make this worse unless something is done to enable the rural housing supply to grow. We all look forward to whatever the Affordable Rural Housing Commission will have to say in March next year.
	Rural England is a place where the law of unintended consequences is powerful, and we need an independent and robust commission concentrating on rural disadvantage. It needs to be independent not only of policy makers—or, indeed, of those who deliver policy—but also independent of single-issue lobby groups, for which rural England provides such fertile soil. The chair of the commission will, of course, be the rural advocate, with direct access to the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State. I hope that no one in the House will think that that is a position which ought to be abolished in the interests of rural England. If anyone is to be really effective in the job it is imperative that he or she has the expertise, the networks and the logistical support that the proposed commission would provide.
	If there was no commission, I wonder who would monitor the new regional delivery of rural policy, especially through the RDAs, and who would speak out if that proved inadequate. If government policies for public service reform overlooked the rural dimension, who would say so authoritatively if we had no national body to do that work?
	Those who make and deliver policies—whether government departments, local councils, primary care trusts or RDAs—almost always have mixed rural and urban constituencies, and usually they are dominated by the urban mindset. The case for a body whose remit is solely rural and focused especially on the most disadvantaged in our rural communities, is very strong. In the hope that it may indeed both take root and be robustly independent, I wish it and the Bill well.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. It is one of the best debates in which I have spoken during my five years in this House. I should not be surprised, because every participant has brought expertise—some of the best expertise in this country.
	I support the Bill. It is a good Bill. In that respect, I go along with the latter points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that he welcomed the Bill with certain reservations—I paraphrase. I think that that, in a sense, is the mood of the House. The Government have done everything correctly. They put the Bill out to a form of pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill has been before the Select Committee in the other House. There was a full debate in the other House, which I am sure most of us have followed very closely. And there has been a more general debate in the public arena.
	I support the Bill, I guess, for the simple reason that I believe that it can improve the delivery of services in rural areas and wider. I emphasise "and wider", because the Bill is about not only rural areas, but urban areas as well. Natural England will have a remit in the urban area as well as the rural area.
	I have been encouraged too by the Minister's announcement—I hope that I am going to be even more encouraged by his announcement later—that Sir Martin Doughty will be chair designate of the new organisation. I think that we all trust Sir Martin. He will be independent in matters of concern on both sides of the House, and he will be a sturdy champion of Natural England.
	I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I have known him for 20 or so years. I am very proud of the fact that I brought him into government in 1997. I appointed him as chair of the Better Regulation Task Force. He was superb at that. He brought an incisive, invigorating and reforming approach. Most of all, he came forward with a pragmatic approach to balancing and reducing the number of regulations that we all find so burdensome. So I pay to tribute to the noble Lord. I believe that his report of October 2003 was the genesis of the Bill that we are discussing today.
	I shall not speak from the notes which I have prepared because this is a debate. I have said how good a debate it has been and it is right and proper to respond to some of the points that have been raised. In declaring an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission, I ought at least to make some initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who both asked why neither the Forestry Commission nor the Environment Agency is in this new quango.
	There are a number of reasons. It was something that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, looked at, and he made the recommendation that the Forestry Commission should be either aligned to of part of the new agency. That was something that the Government obviously considered and they came down in favour of alignment for the simple reason that they believed that it was the best way in which to preserve the special qualities of the Forestry Commission and what it had brought to this country over the past 80 years and that it would attain and help the objectives of the new agency. The noble Earl rightly made the point about biomass and wood-fuelled central heating; that is something that we are working on very hard—and indeed, at our headquarters in Kielder we have just established one such wood-fired central heating unit that heats not only our office but the local youth hostel and some of the local community buildings as well. We are working with an organisation called SembCorp, which is establishing and building a full-sized wood-fired power station on Teeside. The critical mass of that wood will come out of our forests.
	The lesson that I have learnt from the noble Earl this evening is simply this: the one thing that I find difficult in working with foresters—and I do not find much difficulty in doing so—is that they find it a problem to explain to people what they do or, to put it crudely, to sing their own praises. They are naturally people who get on and deliver. Almost the key finding of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was just that—that there was a great deal of satisfaction with the Forestry Commission and the way in which it works. Paragraph 6.54 of the noble Lord's report states:
	"If Ministers pursue the option of fully integrating forestry functions in England with the proposed new agency"—
	that is the key issue; it is never highlighted but it is in words of one syllable—
	"I would advise against transferring the management of the estate (by Forest Enterprise England) as well".
	In other words, the noble Lord is saying, no matter what you do with the Forestry Commission, with the regulatory aspect he would advise against transferring the overwhelming majority of the activity of the commission to the new agency. That was his recommendation.
	When I point out to noble Lords certain things that my foresters would not point out—that there are 350 million visits a year to Forestry Commission land, which is many more visits than to the seaside, and that there are 22,000 kilometres of tracks in forests used for cycling, which is enough to go half the way around the world; and when I say that we have dedicated for access in perpetuity 130,000 hectares in the past 18 months, I am making the point that the Forestry Commission delivers as it is. The figure of 350 million visits to our forests, which are free—gratis, for nothing—for the benefit of the citizens of our country, has been estimated not by us but by independent assessors. It means that we bring in almost £2.5 billion to the local economy. That money does not go to the Forestry Commission; it goes into the local economy.
	An example that is very dear to my heart is that of the ospreys in Cumbria, which attract more than 100,000 visitors a year, just to watch the two birds. It has been estimated that the amount accruing to the local economy is more than £2 million a year, just for those two birds, which were attracted because some clever foresters saw the ospreys going up to Scotland, chopped the tops of the pine trees, built a platform and a nest, and applied the white paint to make it realistic—and that attracted the ospreys down. That is innovative thinking from the Forestry Commission, and innovative thinking with which I hope the new commission will be affected, by working alongside us, because it is the innovative thinking that is necessary if we are going to improve the delivery in the rural areas, as we need to.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I ask for your Lordships' indulgence, particularly that of the Minister. I have a longstanding engagement that will make it impossible for me to attend his winding-up. This is a particular disappointment, in view of his intervention earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I hope he will not regard this as a discourtesy.
	It is my lot to speak after my noble friend Lord Goschen solely on Part 6 of the Bill. Here I congratulate the Government on a refreshing and radical concept, which is to be warmly welcomed in the interests of protecting the environment. However, there are some lacunae in this part of the Bill, as my noble friend and others have noted, in particular my noble friend Lady Byford. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, on his explicit exposition of the problems lying behind the issue of exemptions.
	I contend that the tidiest way to give effect to the new Bill is to give no exemptions at all—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has made this abundantly and unequivocally clear—and for the Minister to confirm that all new claims will be dealt with under the new legislation. I find the words at Third Reading of the Minister in another place, Mr Jim Knight, encouraging. He said that,
	"if there is the flood that we fear as a result of my announcement about commencement, I will seek to take as aggressive a stance as I possibly can from that legal advice on how outstanding claims are to be dealt with".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/05; col. 228.]
	I was encouraged by the Minister's opening remarks, and I hope your Lordships will be further encouraged by his closing speech as a result of his intervention.
	Evidence from the Green Lanes Protection Group suggests that BOAT claims made in the three weeks following Third Reading in another place totalled 183. That compared with 284 for the whole of 2005 up to that date, but with only 100 for the whole of 2003. These figures must be treated with caution for a number of reasons, not least that different authorities have differing procedures for dealing with incompletely submitted claims. Some are returned to claimants; others accepted conditionally. These figures, however, indicate an increasing trend, and there is evidence that a large number—in the Minister's words, "a flood"—of claims are being held pending clarification by the Government. This is borne out by the number of applications for claim forms that have been received by several authorities.
	I am sure it is recognised by all parts of your Lordships' House that there are conflicts between users of MPVs on the one hand and conservators and landowners on the other. It will be the wish of the House that at least this part of the Bill is as consensual as it can be. I have made my views clear: there should be no exemptions. If the Minister finds it necessary to have a cut-off date, however, this does not amount to retrospection. I have had advice from counsel to the effect that terminating the procedure for recording a right under Part 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not of itself offend the presumption against retrospection. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind should he find it appropriate to fix a cut-off date.
	To that end, I suggest two possible options. The first is that claims should be exempted where a DMMO has already been made by the highway authority but the process has for some reason not been completed. This has the clear attraction of exempting older cases where evidence has been considered and reliance placed, at least in procedural terms, on the existing law. But it would mean that exemption would not be granted in recent cases made after the notice of change in the law has been given, most of which claims will have been made to beat the clock.
	The other, simpler option is that exemption should be granted for all claims made before 9 December 2003, the date of publication of the Minister's proposals. This would contain an element of fairness, and would be in line with the frequent practice of dating commencement from a ministerial note of intention.
	This part of the Bill is sensible and equitable. As it stands at present, its intentions are capable of being neutered. I am sure many of your Lordships will have seen a photograph, reputedly taken in the Yorkshire Dales, of a Land Rover buried almost up to its bonnet in slurry, with a queue of others behind it waiting to "enjoy the fun". This is the massacre of the ancient byways of England and Wales that this Bill is designed to protect, and I urge the Government in this respect not to fall at the last hurdle.

Lord Moran: My Lords, sadly we have got used to thinking that the present Government have little interest in, or concern for, the environment, the countryside and the people who live it, and the landscape in what is left of our green and pleasant land. A few days ago I saw a report that two government agencies, the Countryside Agency and English Nature, had denounced Mr Prescott's plan to build half a million new houses in the south-east of England as "environmental vandalism". Under his plans, houses are to be built on flood plains and in environmentally sensitive locations. There are to be 67 new road schemes, concreting over much of the south and south-west.
	All this is against the background of a prolonged crisis in farming, when dairy farmers can no longer get a price for milk that covers their cost, supermarkets prefer to buy cheap Brazilian beef instead of high-quality British beef, and Deloitte's annual survey of farm incomes says that the only rational response for farmers to present prices should be to get out of producing food. If farming as we know it is to remain unprofitable, the role of farmers in looking after the countryside will be lost, causing a huge deterioration of the countryside, which will be a devastating loss to each and every one of us.
	After all this, it was a rare pleasure to come across this Bill, and to find it contained so much that could be warmly welcomed. It was introduced with a persuasive speech by the Minister this afternoon. I was particularly glad to see that it has been welcomed by leading NGOs dedicated to the wildlife and the environment: Wildlife Link, of which I once had the honour to be chairman; the RSPB, on whose council I once sat; the Wildlife Trust, with which I am associated as president of one of the smallest of their trusts, that for Radnorshire; the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England; and a number of others. Natural England, despite its odd and not very satisfactory title, on which I agree with Lord Carter, needs to be a tough, effective force. If it is, it could be valuable.
	Defra is to be congratulated on arranging for the draft Bill to be scrutinised by a Commons committee, which produced an admirable, detailed report. I read it and the Government's response, which accepted most of the committee's recommendations, with much interest. Most of the environmental NGOs gave evidence to this committee, and I have read their latest briefing notes, which are helpful. There are still one or two unresolved points, though, on which the Commons committee and most NGOs are agreed but the Government are as yet unpersuaded. It is these points on which we should concentrate when we come to the Committee and Report stages.
	Looking at the Government's response, I found that three of the principle recommendations—including one on the level of independence and one on flexible delivery—received a positive response from the Government, on pages 20 and 23. A number of important recommendations, however, received a negative response, particular those on conflict resolution, regarding what happens when environmental and other considerations—for example, access—come into conflict; on the question of a role for protecting the landscape; on quiet recreation; and on future environmental charging.
	Two of those points are important. Conflict resolution is desirable, but needs to be addressed only in the last resort. It should not come up every day. There are, however, situations in which there is no agreement between the environmental imperative and the economic—or, conceivably, social—argument on the other side. In those circumstances, it should be laid down in the Bill that the environmental consideration should prevail.
	On the question of protecting landscape, it has been pointed out that there is provision in the Bill for biodiversity to be protected but not landscape. If that is left in the Bill as such, it will send a signal to everyone outside that Parliament is less interested in the landscape than in biodiversity. That would be wrong and misleading. The arguments put forward by the committee and by a number of NGOs that the word "protect" should be used for landscape should be adopted primarily for that reason.
	On the question of quiet recreation, I have heard the Government's arguments, which I understand, but I am sure that some other form of words could be devised, perhaps at the next stage, that would cover that point.
	There are one or two smaller points. It is, I think, important that there should be a duty in the Bill on the Secretary of State to deal with the question of non-native species that have a devastating effect on our own biodiversity; creatures such as the mink or the signal crayfish come to mind. It must be possible for the Government to take effective action to stop them coming in and spreading. The CPRE has also raised the question of the lack of any provision in the Bill for protecting and enhancing the extent and quality of the countryside, which it thinks is possibly an oversight in the drafting of the legislation. So it argues, and I think that it is right, that,
	"the acknowledgement of the countryside as a source of open-air recreation in the Bill is matched with a recognition of the importance of retaining its extent and quality".
	On rights of way, I agree very much with the points that have been made very powerfully in the House on the need for urgent action to stop the spread of BOATs by a recreational minority who are more interested in the challenge of driving 4x4s over soft ground on old green lanes than anything else, which is doing immense damage. I look forward eagerly to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. The noble Lord, Lord Haworth, spoke very eloquently about the issue and I agree with everything that he said. The need is for action to be taken quickly before things get out of hand.
	One of the factors that is really effective in preserving the landscape is land ownership. It is the most effective way in which the interests that we all have at heart can be protected. Perhaps the greatest single example of what has been done is the work of the National Trust in the Lake District, where the acquisition of land begun at the turn of the century by Canon Rawnsley and Beatrix Potter has now resulted in the trust owning or leasing nearly all the central area of fells and major valley heads, six of the main lakes and much of their shorelines—140,000 acres in all, with 87 farms, 15 of them bequeathed to the trust by Beatrix Potter. If it had not been for this magnificent effort by a private voluntary organisation, the Lake District would undoubtedly now be ruined by commercial development.
	Public bodies which own or manage land can very often do something effective in that degree. For example, the Wildlife Trusts has pointed out that the Prison Service has carried out surveys and produced its own biodiversity action plan because a lot of the land surrounding prisons has a wealth of wildlife. It has produced this biodiversity action plan with the help of English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts. That seems to me thoroughly commendable. There is obviously a need for the new organisation to work very closely with farmers and other land managers. That, I am sure, it will do.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, like most landowners and caretakers I have been a client of numerous government agencies, not only complying with their aims but also receiving funds to help achieve them—an experience not always to be recommended. Like other noble Lords I welcome the establishment of Natural England—NE—and its aims of managing and enhancing the natural environment from seabed to mountaintop, more efficiently and with lower costs, we hope. There has long been too much overlap between English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Forestry Commission and the Rural Development Service. Consolidation will provide a simpler interface for the clients and a clear list of objectives. Most important are the promotion of natural conservation and protection of biodiversity, the improvement of facilities for studying and enjoying nature, the promotion of sustainable use of the countryside through access and recreation, and the contribution to economic well being through the management of the natural environment—at less cost to the taxpayer and client, one hopes, than has been the case recently. However, there are three points that I should like to raise.
	First, there is currently no recourse in the Bill to arbitration should a landowner or caretaker disagree with the remit of NE. Given that many such disagreements could easily be resolved through arbitration, it would seem economically and practically prudent to put such a system in place rather than forcing every such challenge to be addressed directly to the Secretary of State, a complex procedure that is not available to many owing to the cost.
	Secondly, it is important that landowners be given some flexibility in carrying out the wishes of NE while accepting the need to conform to the aims and directions of NE. Too heavy a hand in the minutiae of execution is rarely productive. In short, while NE should set the aim, the client should be allowed to achieve the aim in his own way. Clients usually have great experience in their field and derive much enjoyment from the challenges of management. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, most of our countryside is man made. The maker is surely well qualified to manage it.
	Finally, the NERC Bill fails to clarify whether enhancing or conserving the environment should be considered the priority. Indeed, what is the definition of "enhancing" and "conserving"? I am sure there will be a discussion—a little discussion—in Committee. Likewise, there is some ambiguity about whether wildlife or human access to the countryside should take precedence. The Woodland Trust and the CPRE are among others that would like to see a conflict resolution clause that makes it clear that when there is a serious or irreconcilable conflict between open-air recreation and conserving the natural environment, NE will give the greater weight to conserving the natural environment. I listened earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, articulate similar views. On the other hand, the Central Council of Physical Recreation believes that,
	"access and recreation [should] . . . be given equal consideration as conservation and biodiversity".
	I therefore believe that the Bill would be the better for clarification in this important area.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister said that prior to the election I was responsible for the Bill, it will come as no great surprise to your Lordships to hear that I strongly support it. In so far as it has been changed since I relinquished responsibility for it, it has been vastly improved.
	Much has been said already about the Bill and I do not intend to repeat much of it. However, I wish to make two points that I do not think have been made, certainly not while I was in the Chamber or watching the debate on the monitor. First, as a former waterways Minister, I very much welcome the establishment of the independent waterways council. Waterways are a very important feature of our rural and, indeed, urban landscape and their contribution to recreation and biodiversity is very important. Secondly, I also welcome the contingency powers to implement recommendations arising from the review of the agricultural levy boards. I am at one with the NFU and the farmers' organisations that we need to update the whole role of the levy boards in an era when we are moving to single farm payments and a more homogenous approach to farming more generally.
	As regards the main provisions of the Bill, I believe that generally there has been a huge welcome for the creation of Natural England, with the rather important caveat of doubt about its title. I was not personally responsible for the title. It was subject to a competition among the staff and others during the early period of discussion and consultation. It rather reminds me of when I was a trades union officer and we had to change the rather old-fashioned name of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. We had 100,000 replies with the consensus being that it should be called the General and Municipal Workers Union. To some extent, the name Natural England has a slight problem for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Carter and others, whereas "nature" is a slightly wider term. Nevertheless, any changes that need to be made to the name will have to be consequent on the body's activities and on the passage of the Bill.
	I believe that everything else in the Bill has largely been welcomed. One of the reasons it has been welcomed is due to the very substantial constructive engagement not only of the staff, boards and chairs of the agencies involved—I wish particularly to put on record our thanks to Sir Martin Doughty and my congratulations on his appointment—but also of stakeholders more widely, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the staff of the parts of Defra which are being passed on to the new organisation. Those efforts and that constructive approach in a period of difficult and anxiety-inducing change have greatly improved the provisions which are now reflected in the Bill.
	There seems to be a wide consensus on the overall intentions and objectives of the new agency although there has been some argument about its general purpose. The drafting of the relevant clauses was subject to considerable consultation and ingenuity. They may not be absolutely perfect but they reflect a better balance than is now being urged by some. On the one hand, those who say that we should give equal weight to economic and social objectives in sustainable development miss the central point that this is essentially an environmental agency. While it has to recognise that it has social and economic outputs—I hope that those will be positive—the central role of the agency will be environmental. On the other hand, I do not accept the argument put by some of the environmental lobby groups that the references to social and economic outputs should not be included at all and that the body should be seen purely as an environmental organisation. In fact, the role of sustainable development constitutes a wider philosophical and political argument but we need a balance here—it is primarily environmental but it must pay attention to the social and economic implications for the countryside of its aim of protecting biodiversity and the landscape.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone alluded to the importance of the new agency working very closely with the Environment Agency. That is particularly important in the areas which will become of increasing significance in the countryside as we move more resources of the agri-environment schemes into Pillar Two of the CAP, to which she referred. I refer also in that regard to the management of water in our countryside. The catchment areas and their effect on farming, agricultural practice and the quality of water will become increasingly important and have a significant effect on biodiversity and, indeed, in some instances on the landscape itself. That requires all the agencies to co-operate, and to co-operate with the farming community, to ensure that we achieve the objectives of adequate quantity and quality of water without having a negative impact on wildlife.
	The more controversial area concerns the role of the CRC. I am almost entirely at one with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on that matter. I do not understand the position of noble Lords who have indicated that because the protection of rural communities is such an important issue somehow we should not have a CRC as proposed in the Bill. The logic of that escapes me. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right to say that the Countryside Agency in its previous incarnation as a delivery body was partly hamstrung by the fact that it was a delivery body and had to deliver through its rather limited resources in conjunction with other bodies while at the same time performing a cross-government role on rural proofing, rural advice and rural advocacy. I support the removal of those delivery obligations and the creation of a stronger countryside representative body, arguing across government. People argue that this is Defra's responsibility but the whole point of the CRC is that it will be an organisation influencing all areas of government which affect rural communities.
	There are huge social and economic problems in many of our rural areas. We have established a separate commission responsible for affordable housing. However, there are other social problems of great significance in rural areas, not least of which is the problem of inequality in income and wealth and access to services such as transport, education and health. Therefore, it is important to have a CRC that is sufficiently independent and cross-government and operates at regional, local and national level to ensure that all policies are assessed in terms of their impact on rural communities in England. There is a very strong case for having a CRC as proposed in the Bill. It must be strong and independent and its membership must have a broad vision regarding the future of our countryside.
	However, I acknowledge that there are caveats. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and others, I should have liked to see a slightly bigger role for local government. However, I suspect that is not a matter for this legislation; it is a matter for the broader policy which surrounds it and which I believe will deliver a better future for our countryside not only through its rationalisation of the agencies but also through better co-operation between those agencies, local government and the RDAs and other rural and regional instruments of policy. I greatly welcome the Bill. I wish it God speed through this House although I suspect that we shall have substantial discussions in Committee. I wish it well.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point.
	My noble friend Lord Carter asked, without the CRC, who would monitor the rural-proofing activities of Defra, other government departments and local authorities. We agree with him: who else would do it?
	I have already spoken on costs but I will write to the noble Baroness with more detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised an important debate about conflict resolution, and other noble Lords joined in. Earlier I said that I wanted Natural England to be a trenchant champion of the environment. I hope that noble Lords will find it reassuring that the Sandford principle will continue to apply in national parks and that in nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest the strong presumption that biodiversity considerations takes precedence will continue. That is vital in those important areas, where the value of local biodiversity and landscape has been clearly identified through due process.
	However, Natural England's remit extends outside those areas to cover England's entire land mass. The general purpose gives Natural England the role of ensuring that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations. No one reading that purpose can doubt that Natural England is an environmental organisation. Natural England's decision-making context will be sustainable development. Through its environmental work, Natural England will actively seek economic and social benefits. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, our aim is not to restrict the membership of Natural England to a narrow group of interests. I know that that matter concerns him.
	I told noble Lords that I would say something about byways, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I spend the rest of my time bringing them up to date with information that came to me after my opening speech. I said that I hoped shortly to be able to make an announcement on commencement of the rights of way provisions and how we intend to deal with outstanding claims for byways open to all traffic. I am pleased to say that we have completed our deliberations and to make the following announcement. We propose to commence the provisions at the date of Royal Assent. We intend to deal with any claims for byways open to all traffic submitted to local authorities before the commencement date as follows. Our aim is to prevent local authorities being inundated with byway claims to defeat the legislation. However, we must also take into account that there are byway claims outstanding simply because it takes an appreciable amount of time to process them. Also many have been outstanding for some time because some local authorities have not processed them as quickly as they might.
	Given those circumstances, we consider it fair and reasonable to limit the transitional provisions for byway claims so that only claims submitted prior to the Bill's introduction, on 19 May 2005, will be preserved, apart from two exceptions. First, we think it reasonable to provide for byway claims made after 19 May to be preserved in cases where the local authority has already reached the stage of determining the claim and has made a definitive map modification order. We believe that few, if any, claims made after 19 May will have reached that stage. Secondly, not forgetting that the concern about the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way is about non-essential or recreational use, there is a strong argument for preserving claims where they are made by property owners seeking to establish a public right to their property to provide them with legal certainty.
	We recognise that those transitional provisions will leave a significant number of outstanding BOAT claims in some counties, particularly Wiltshire, Hampshire, Derbyshire and Somerset. There is no reason why traffic regulation orders cannot be put into effect before motor vehicular rights are established. Those authorities should look at how to make the best use of those powers to manage any problematical use of those byways while claims are being processed.
	That is our present intention. I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in Committee, where it would be appropriate to do so, but I hope that the House feels that it has up-to-date information. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading. I look forward to meeting all of you, some of you, or maybe even more, in Committee in due course. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time.

Lord Addington: My Lords, comments having some fun with carts and horses being placed in various places were a great temptation on the order. However, as the noble Lord said, there is really no point. It is a legal mess caused by the slow progress of the Bill, so the order is basically just holding ground. I think that the Bill has just got out of Standing Committee A in another place. We really do not know what we are doing with it.
	Reading the order, Article 2(2) caught my eye. It states:
	"The reference in this Order to promoting community safety is to making communities places in which it is, or is perceived to be, safer to live and to work, in particular by the reduction of actual or perceived levels of crime and other anti-social behaviour".
	Let us face it, additionality—expanding beyond the base—started when the idea of the lottery started. It has gone to a ridiculous level. Surely, from local government upwards, every department of state concerned with law and order should be dealing with the content of Article 2(2). If the National Lottery is seen to always have things taken away, when there is a crisis in its funding or it over-extends its grasp, there will be a problem in maintaining those projects.
	Ticket sales are going well, although they have gone badly. They can go well in the future. When someone comes up with a nice, money-spinning virtue of small stake/big reward, eventually there will be a problem, especially if we expand in this way. It will go wrong at some time. I hope that I am not around when it does.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for both contributions to the debate, although I would be hard-pressed to define them as entirely supportive. The order may be a wee thing, but it is a most attractive cart to put before any horse. I want it judged on its attraction in its own right.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, had a great deal of fun about the problems that we had with regard to the Bill, which, as he rightly said, is still in Committee in the other place. Although the noble Lord is not unaware of such things, I should like to point out that general elections have that effect on legislative programmes. He will also know that governments with secure majorities do not hold general elections much more often than once every four years. Therefore, it is unlikely that our present programme will run into the same obvious difficulties that occurred in March.
	The noble Viscount can rest assured that there are no real worries that the legislation to put in place all the requisite parts to which the order refers will be in place next year, subject of course to the will of Parliament. I am conscious of the fact that we will have much debate during the passage of the Bill. As the noble Viscount suggested, I have a lot to look forward to. My blood chilled as he spoke, but it absolutely froze when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, nodded in agreement. That seemed like a double onslaught, to which I am ill equipped to respond at this stage. We will face those difficulties when they arise. In the mean time, the order has much to commend it and will enable good work to go on.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says about the old canard regarding additionality. The most obvious point is that there are many communities with which he will be acquainted, and certainly one that I know extremely well, which often put forward ideas on how the environment could be enhanced to improve the defence of the community against the ravages of vandals and people engaged in petty crime. It is not the case that central government can anticipate every dimension of that. It is certainly the case that central government gives resources when the local authority is entitled to raise its resources to meet those challenges. However, at times, local initiatives come forward where, for instance, people build—as they frequently do as a result of voluntary activity—their local village hall. I was in one only five months ago which was an absolutely magnificent structure. It had been built with £300,000 raised by the local community, which is a tidy sum. The local authority was as generous in its support as it could be, but I did not baulk at the fact that an element of that money came from lottery funds. We were rewarding initiative, enterprise, activity and achievement with extra support which made the project look even better than it otherwise would have done. I cannot see that that is a concept of additionality that ought to disturb the House, but, surely, it is one that we should all welcome.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. Of course, he, too, will be breathing fire and fury with regard to the Bill when it comes before the House. But if noble Lords will forgive me, sufficient unto the day is the heat thereof. I do not intend to face that just yet. I will deal with this order today and commend it to the House.

Baroness Wilcox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to make any changes in the number and role of special advisers involved in Government decision-making.
	My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to ask this Question in your Lordships' House. I start by stating clearly that I see nothing wrong with governments using special advisers. Our Conservative government had them in modest numbers and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, and speaking here today, was a political adviser to Lord Callaghan from 1974 to 1979. I hope that when he has heard what I have to say he will agree that special advisers, like leaven in the bread, should be used sparingly.
	I have tabled this Question because I believe that this Government are fundamentally changing the way in which Britain is governed through the greatly increased use of special advisers and by the powers they are increasingly being given. Since 1997, the number of politically appointed special advisers has doubled. The cost of employing them has risen fivefold during this Government's time. Special advisers are increasingly taking on responsibilities that were previously the preserve of Ministers. The Treasury, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Northern Ireland Office have all sent special advisers abroad without Ministers. Some departments have admitted that special advisers have been making speeches, holding meetings, appearing before Select Committees and making appearances to the media.
	I do not doubt that the Government will claim that these special advisers were acting,
	"in accordance with the Code of Conduct",
	but they cannot lightly brush away facts which are becoming more and more uncomfortable. Since Labour came to power there has been a qualitative change in the role of special advisers, as well as a quantitative increase in their numbers. Of that, there can be no doubt.
	The Labour Party manifesto for the 2001 general election stated:
	"Our civil service is world-renowned for its independence. Labour is committed to maintaining the political impartiality of the civil service. But it needs reform to make it more effective and more entrepreneurial. There have been important reforms already. We want to take further radical steps to ensure the civil service has the skills base necessary to meet the challenges set out in this manifesto".
	The Government bowed to pressure from the Select Committee on Public Administration in the other place by issuing in November 2004 a consultation paper about bringing forward legislation the Civil Service legislation implicit in that manifesto and explicitly promised by the Deputy Prime Minister and others in 2002. However, so far as I can see, the Labour Party manifesto for this year's general election was completely silent on the matter. Was this because the "radical steps" were already in hand through the increasing number of special advisers and the growth of their powers?
	A wise man once said, "If we do not change direction soon, we're going to end up where we're heading". However, the drip-drip change of the Government's practice on special advisers makes it hard to see where we are heading. Can the Minister state that the Government will never contemplate a move to an American-style system in which whole tranches of civil servants are changed on a change of government? As noted in last November's consultation paper, the final paragraph of the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan report contained the telling words that the existing Civil Service system,
	"is supported by long usage and powerful interests; and were any Government to introduce material alterations into it, in consequence of their own convictions without taking the precaution to give those alterations the force of law, it is almost certain that they would be imperceptibly, or perhaps avowedly, abandoned by their successors, if they were not even allowed to fall into disuse by the very Government which had originated them".
	I hope that the Government will soon be able to conclude that the proposed Civil Service Bill is now essential, and I am sure your Lordships' House looks forward to debating those important matters in detail. However, much of the thrust of the Government's November 2004 consultation paper on a draft Civil Service Bill seems to be about a more effective vehicle for the delivery of better public services. Whatever views there may be on that, I invite the Minister to agree that a real distinction should be made between on the one hand developing new policies, and on the other, administering the services that deliver them.
	It must be very congenial for Ministers to be surrounded, one might even say protected, by completely like-minded special advisers, but I have to say that yes-men seem unlikely to test policy proposals with the rigour necessary to ensure that results are practicable and effective in the real and very diverse society outside Whitehall. It seems to me that this is where the 2004 consultation paper termed the "enduring values of the Civil Service" are most needed.
	Paragraph 10 of that paper set out those values with some rubric in the following terms:
	"a. incorruptibility and integrity—advice and decisions are not influenced by considerations of personal gain;
	b. impartiality—governments can come into office knowing that their policies and programmes will be put into action from the start. But at the same time civil servants owe neither their jobs nor their prospects to the influence of political parties, lobbyists, business or other interest groups;
	c. honesty and objectivity—honest and full advice is given based on the best available information so that decisions are as well-founded as possible".
	Will the Minister accept that it is hard to see how politically appointed special advisers fully fit that prescription?
	Will he also accept that when civil servants debate policy proposals with Ministers it is not to be difficult or obstructive? They are simply doing their job in the policy development process to help ensure that the resulting programmes not only deliver the intended results but also do so in a practical and cost effective manner. Will he accept that, whatever the nature of such private discussions, part of Civil Service professionalism is faithfully to promote and defend government policies when in public?
	Finally, it seems to me that the key point is—while accepting the need for Ministers to have in-house political advice—to make it clear that such advice is no substitute for the impartial advice of professional civil servants who, when allowed access and time to do their job properly, can assist Ministers to develop effective policies, together with strategies for their implementation. In giving special advisers too great a role, the Government seem determined to measure effectiveness by headlines and column inches rather than the real impact in the country. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be grateful for that robust defence of government policy by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. The Minister should also welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said that she thought that special advisers were a good thing.
	Obviously there have been changes in the role of special advisers in recent years, but not as many as noble Lords might think. The noble Baroness referred to special advisers going abroad. I went to Rhodesia without a Minister to see Ian Smith for Jim Callaghan. I went to Atlanta when the Carter administration was elected—again without a ministerial "minder". When I worked in No. 10 an academic came to see me who said that he was writing a book which traced special advisers at least as far back as Lloyd George and his reforms of 1916 to 1922.
	What has changed—and the figures that have already been quoted illustrate this—is the increase from 38 special advisers to 81. More than half of that increase is accounted for by special advisers in No. 10 Downing Street; that has been the major increase. In most other departments it remains one, two or three advisers playing very much the role that they have always done, but in No. 10 there has been a massive increase and the role has been both as the enforcers and initiators of policy, rather in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to.
	It is far better and healthier that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is now here answering questions at the Dispatch Box and defending his policy as a Minister rather than being tucked away in Downing Street chairing committees and initiating policy there, out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The same problem is now arising with the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who is both a Member of this House and has some ill-defined role inside No. 10; and yet is outside the reach of parliamentary scrutiny, despite the efforts of the committee in another place to get him to testify. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, referred to the recent changes in Orders in Council. What he did not say was that Sir Alastair Graham, who has been referred to, in very strong language deplored the way that the Government had brought forward those Orders in Council in a way that again was outside the reach of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
	It is worthwhile keeping very clear the fact that under successive governments and over a very long period the role of special advisers has been beneficial both to the work of the government and to the special advisers themselves. One has only got to look at Government and Opposition Benches, certainly in the other place, to see how the experience of Whitehall given to special advisers has seeded both Government and Opposition Benches. Who knows—the next leader of the Conservative Party may have on his CV the fact that he was once a special adviser.
	As has been referred to, I had the honour of serving with Mr Callaghan from 1974 to 1979, and I found the relationship that I had with the Civil Service extremely constructive. It was almost entirely dependent on the fact that if a submission went to Mr Callaghan it would often come back just with, "Has Mr McNally seen this?" scribbled in the margin. After a while it became obvious that it got things done quicker if there was an element of co-operation before the Minister had to see it. The healthy contribution of special advisers is appreciated by civil servants, and many whom I have talked to have found that. What has caused problems is that long periods of government leave people in tenure for quite a long time, and that distorts both the role of the Civil Service and the role of the political appointees. We shall leave it to history to judge whether, "Is he one of us?" was ever actually said. It may be one of those great unsaid things, such as, "Play it again, Sam".
	Certainly the impression of the 1980s was of a Civil Service that had been more politicised. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, hinted that Labour came in in 1997 very nervous of what it thought of as a Conservative Civil Service. A lot of what was done then—the way the Chancellor kept key decisions to his political advisers, and the way the Prime Minister staffed No. 10 with special advisers—was an example of that suspicion. Of course mistakes were made. There is no better illustration of that than the fact that once Mr Alastair Campbell was out of No. 10, the odd role he was given as political spokesman and Civil Service director was split. It is now much healthier that David Hill handles the political part of that role, and Howell James the Civil Service part of it.
	I am keen that it come out of the debate that, if the system of political advisers is to work properly, we need a Civil Service Act to underpin the role of the traditional Civil Service. A number of speakers have said that. That is not because I think special advisers are taking over our government, but because the nature, role and task of the Civil Service are changing, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said. I welcome the idea of a much more flexible Civil Service with people coming in more easily and at different stages of their career, and with civil servants moving out to get experience.
	When I came into the Lords 10 years ago, one of the first things that I did was to serve on a committee that sat in 1997 chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, which looked at the impact of the changes that had taken place in the Civil Service. The then new Labour Government were more enthusiastic about that committee because they knew that we were going to examine the impact of the previous 18 years of Conservative government on the ethos of the Civil Service and the concept of public service. It would be interesting to see how enthusiastic the Government would be if the noble and learned Lord's committee or some other committee looked again at the impact of changes on the Civil Service.
	In some ways the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, was overly defensive; in some ways the attack of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was a little too strident. However, the warning bells are there. It is wrong to ignore the concerns about the Civil Service and how some of the changes have impacted on it. The buck stops at No. 10. The Prime Minister has a very cavalier attitude towards Parliament and a continuing impatience with the Civil Service. Both are wrong. The Minister comes regularly to play a very straight bat and kill any spin to the ball but, if the Government will not provide a Civil Service Act, a Prime Minister in search of a legacy will find that history will judge him harshly because much of what he has done has damaged the ethos of the Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, rightly once said that the Northcote-Trevelyan principle was one of the great gifts to the 21st century from our predecessors, and it needs to be underpinned and strengthened. I look forward to the Minister's reply.